DEC  12  1911      *] 


D'visioQ 
Section 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE 
LIFE   OF  CHRIST 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 
LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


*      DEC  12  1911      1 


BT 


^ 


"%eiCALStV^ 


^y 


WILLIAM  BANCROFT  HILL,  D.D. 

PBOFE8SOR    OF    BIBLICAL    LITERATURE    IN    VA88AR    COLLEGE 


CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 
NEWYORK      :      :      :      :      :      :     1911 


Copyright,  1911 
By  Charles  Scribner's  Sons 

Published  October,  1911 


TO 
E.  W.  H. 

WHOSE  DEEP  AND  REVERENT  INTEREST 
IN  ALL  THAT  RELATES  TO   THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 
HAS  BEEN  AN  INSPIRATION 


PREFACE 

This  book  was  written  for  my  own  college  classes  to 
aid  them  in  gaining  the  preliminary  information  neces- 
sary for  an  intelligent  study  of  the  life  of  Christ.  It 
deals  with  a  variety  of  topics,  all  bearing  upon  the  one 
important  question,  What  are  the  sources  from  which 
we  gain  a  knowledge  of  that  life,  and  how  far  are  they 
trustworthy  ? 

There  is  no  lack  of  literature  upon  this  question; 
indeed,  the  very  abundance  of  information  and  dis- 
cussion is  the  chief  difficulty  for  a  beginner.  Many  of 
the  books  are  minute  and  learned  treatises  suited  only 
for  the  specialist.  Others  are  written  to  defend  special 
theories,  and  presuppose  a  general  knowledge  of  the 
subject.  Most  of  them  deal  with  but  one  or  a  few  of 
all  the  topics  to  be  considered.  The  only  book  with 
which  I  am  acquainted  that  covers  much  of  the  field 
in  a  brief,  simple,  uncontroversial  way  is  Anthony's 
"Introduction  to  the  Life  of  Jesus";  but  this  does  not 
treat  of  the  text  or  the  canon,  and  was  published  in 
1896,  since  which  time  new  and  valuable  contribu- 
tions have  been  made  to  our  knowledge. 

I  have  endeavored  to  present  in  a  clear  and  concise 
manner  the  facts  which  should  be  borne  in  mind  as 
the  Four  Gospels  are  studied,  and  the  problems — as 
yet  only  partly  solved — which  these  Gospels  present. 
With  no  theories  of  my  own  to  advocate,  I  have  aimed 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

to  make  possible  a  comprehension  of  theories  pre- 
sented by  scholars  of  various  schools.  And  while  I 
have  frankly  stated  my  own  conviction  that  a  search- 
ing criticism  of  the  Gospels  only  reveals  more  clearly 
their  essential  trustworthiness,  I  hope  I  have  treated 
with  fairness  and  full  appreciation  those  writers  who 
maintain  the  contrary. 

A  few  years  ago  I  prepared  a  "Guide  to  the  Lives  of 
Christ  for  English  Readers."  Its  purpose  was  to  give  a 
general  view  of  the  course  of  modern  thought  concern- 
ing the  life  of  Christ,  and  especially  a  brief  description 
of  each  of  the  more  important  Lives,  written  in  Eng- 
lish or  accessible  in  translation.  The  need  of  some 
such  guide  for  the  inexperienced  student  is  evident, 
when  one  realizes  how  many  Lives  of  Christ,  written 
from  various  stand-points  and  differing  greatly  in 
scholarship,  are  presented  for  his  choice.  This  work 
is  now  out  of  print;  so  I  have  added  it,  somewhat 
condensed  and  brought  down  to  date,  as  an  Appendix 
to  the  present  volume. 

If  this  book  shall  furnish  to  my  students  an  intro- 
duction to  the  broad  and  fascinating  fields  of  Gospel 
criticism,  I  shall  be  satisfied.  If  it  shall  be  of  service 
to  others  who  may  wish  to  know  what  these  fields 
contain,  I  shall  be  greatly  pleased. 

W.  B.  H. 

Vassar  College,  May,  1911. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    Heathen  and  Jewish  Writings 1 

II.    Christian  Writings  Other  Than  Gospels      .  11 

III.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels 21 

IV.  The  Canon  of  the  Gospels 35 

V.    The  Text  of  the  Gospels 45 

VI.    The  Text  of  the  Gospels  (Continued)      .    .  C9 

VII.    The  Date  of  the  Gospels 84 

VEIL    The  Synoptic  Problem 102 

IX.    The  Johannine  Problem 118 

X.    Characteristics  of  Each  Gospel 145 

XI.    The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels  ...  171 

XII.    The  Use  of  the  Gospels  for  a  Life  of  Christ  185 

Appendix.    Lives  of  Christ 203 

Index 223 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  LIFE 
OF  CHRIST 

CHAPTER  I 

HEATHEN  AND  JEWISH  WRITINGS 

In  studying  the  life  of  Christ,  as  in  studying  any  other 
chapter  of  history,  we  must  begin  by  considering  what 
are  the  sources  from  which  we  gain  our  information, 
and  to  what  degree  are  they  trustworthy.  Evidently 
the  Four  Gospels  of  the  New  Testament  are  the  chief 
source,  and  questions  that  bear  upon  their  trustworthi- 
ness are  of  supreme  importance.  But  the  life  of  Christ 
is  of  such  vital  interest  to  the  world  that  every  possible 
source  of  knowledge  is  eagerly  examined  to  see  both 
what  additional  facts  it  may  give  us,  and  in  what  way  it 
may  confirm  or  disprove  the  facts  given  in  the  gospels. 
We  turn  first  to  heathen  writers.  Jesus  lived  in  a 
century  when  able  historians  were  ready  to  record  any- 
thing of  importance  that  happened  in  the  realm  of  the 
Caesars.  And  certainly  they  could  select  no  subject 
more  important  and  more  sure  to  make  their  writings 
immortal  than  the  deeds  and  words  of  Him  from  whose 
birth  we  now  date  the  reigns  of  the  Csesars.     If  Christ 

1 


2       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

really  lived,  and  was  what  the  evangelists  report,  shall 
we  not  find  some  account  of  him  by  Roman  historians  ? 
Two  facts  make  such  a  supposition  improbable. 
The  first  is  that  very  little  has  come  down  to  us  from 
those  historians  who  lived  in  the  days  of  Christ  and 
wrote  the  history  of  their  own  times.  Indeed,  with  the 
exception  of  the  writings  of  Tacitus  and  Suetonius, 
all  Roman  history  of  the  first  century  that  can  in  any 
sense  be  called  contemporaneous  has  disappeared. 
And  the  second  fact  is  that  no  Roman  historian  would 
think  it  worth  while  to  write  about  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
Though  Judea  was  a  province  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
it  was  a  petty  one  in  a  remote  corner;  and  its  people 
were  regarded  with  contempt  or  aversion.  Their  stub- 
born, rebellious  character  often  brought  them  to  the 
attention  of  the  emperor;  but  that  attention  was  de- 
voted to  the  task  of  holding  them  in  subjection.  As  for 
Jesus,  the  historian  would  have  smiled  at  the  thought  of 
devoting  even  a  paragraph  to  him.  His  ministry  was 
very  brief;  his  work  was  mainly  among  the  common 
people — peasants  and  fishermen;  his  miracles  were 
easily  confounded  with  the  mass  of  imposture  in  which 
the  age  abounded;  and  above  all,  the  refusal  of  his 
own  nation  to  accept  him  as  its  leader,  and  his  igno- 
minious death,  seemed  abundant  proof  that  he  was  be- 
neath consideration.  For  a  Roman  historian  of  the 
first  century  to  record  the  career  of  Jesus  was  as  un- 
likely as  it  would  be  for  a  Russian  historian  of  to-day 


HEATHEN  AND  JEWISH  WRITINGS  3 

to  record  the  career  of  some  brief  leader  of  a  little  band 
of  fanatics  in  the  obscure  regions  of  Daghestan. 

The  only  place,  therefore,  where  we  might  find  a 
notice  of  Jesus  in  heathen  history,  is  in  the  pages  of 
Tacitus  or  Suetonius;  and  the  only  possibility  is  of 
some  incidental  mention  of  him.  Such  mention  we 
do  find.  Tacitus,  who  ranks  as  one  of  the  greatest  of 
Roman  historians,  wrote  his  annals  not  long  after  A.  D. 
100.  In  this  work  (XV,  44),  when  telling  how  Nero 
was  suspected  of  having  set  fire  to  Rome  in  A.  D.  64, 
he  writes  as  follows: 

"In  order  to  suppress  the  rumor,  Nero  falsely  ac- 
cused and  punished  with  the  most  acute  tortures  per- 
sons who,  already  hated  for  their  shameful  deeds,  were 
commonly  called  Christians.  The  founder  of  that 
name,  Christus,  had  been  put  to  death  by  the  procura- 
tor, Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius;  but  the 
deadly  superstition,  though  repressed  for  a  time,  broke 
out  again,  not  only  through  Judea,  where  this  evil  had 
its  origin,  but  also  through  the  city  [Rome]  whither  all 
things  horrible  and  vile  flow  from  all  quarters  and  are 
encouraged.  Accordingly,  first  those  were  arrested 
who  confessed;  then  on  their  information  a  great  multi- 
tude were  convicted  not  so  much  of  the  crime  of  incen- 
diarism as  of  hatred  of  the  human  race." 

Suetonius  was  a  contemporary  of  Tacitus,  but  an 
historian  of  much  less  ability.  In  his  lives  of  the 
twelve  Caesars  (Claud.  25)  he  says: 


4       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

"He  [Claudius]  expelled  from  Rome  the  Jews,  be- 
cause they  were  constantly  raising  a  tumult  at  the  in- 
stigation of  Chrestus." 

The  expulsion  is  the  one  referred  to  in  Acts  18: 2,  and 
took  place  probably  about  A.  D.  50.  We  know  noth- 
ing more  about  it.  Possibly  the  Jews  quarrelled  over 
the  claims  of  Christ,  and  Suetonius — confusing  the 
strange  name  Christus  with  the  familiar  Greek  adjec- 
tive Chrestos,  often  used  as  a  proper  name — supposed 
the  person  who  bore  it  to  have  been  in  Rome  when  the 
quarrel  broke  out. 

One  further  mention  of  Christ,  though  not  by  an 
historian,  is  worth  quoting.  Pliny  the  Younger  was 
governor  of  Bithynia,  in  Asia  Minor,  about  A.  D.  112; 
and  he  wrote  a  letter  (Epistles  X,  97)  to  the  emperor, 
Trajan,  telling  what  he  had  learned  about  the  Chris- 
tians in  his  province,  and  asking  how  he  should 
deal  with  them.  The  letter  is  most  valuable  as  a 
picture  of  Christian  life  at  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond century;  but  for  our  present  purpose  we  need 
only  note  that  many  of  the  Christians  were  ready  to 
undergo  torture  rather  than  renounce  Christ,  and 
that  those  who  did  renounce  him  made  the  following 
statement: 

"  They  affirmed  that  the  sum  of  their  guilt  or  error 
was  to  assemble  on  a  fixed  day  before  daybreak,  and 
sing  responsively  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  to  a  god,  and  to 
bind  themselves  with  an  oath  not  to  enter  into  any 


HEATHEN  AND  JEWISH  WRITINGS  5 

wickedness  or  commit  thefts,  robberies,  or  adulteries,  or 
falsify  their  work,  or  repudiate  trusts  committed  to 
them:  when  these  things  were  ended  it  was  their  cus- 
tom to  depart,  and,  on  coming  together  again  *'  (prob- 
ably in  the  evening  for  the  love-feast),  "  to  take  food, 
men  and  women  together,  yet  innocently." 

The  statements  of  these  three  writers  are  practically 
all  that  is  of  value  in  heathen  literature  concerning 
Christ.  They  wrote  fully  three  quarters  of  a  century 
after  his  death,  but  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  doubtless 
gained  their  information  from  earlier  documents. 
They  state  but  little,  yet  that  little  is  enough  to  give 
Jesus  a  place  in  secular  history.  From  it  alone  we 
should  know  that  he  lived  in  Judea  in  the  reign  of 
Tiberius,  that  he  was  put  to  death  by  Pontius  Pilate, 
that' he  founded  a  sect  which  continued  after  his  death, 
and  that  his  followers  in  later  days  worshipped  him 
as  a  god,  and  were  willing  to  endure  torture  rather  than 
renounce  their  faith. 

Turning  next  to  possible  Jewish  sources,  we  find  that 
they  are  few  in  number.  Philo  was  the  ablest  Jewish 
writer  of  the  first  century,  and  was  a  contemporary  of 
Jesus;  but  he  lived  in  Alexandria,  his  interests  were 
philosophical,  and  there  was  no  special  reason  why  he 
should  mention  Jesus  in  any  of  his  writings  that  are 
preserved.  We  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  he  is 
silent  about  him;  indeed,  he  probably  knew  little  or 
nothing  about  the  Christians. 


6       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Josephus,  who  was  born  A.  D.  37  or  38,  and  died 
after  A.  D.  100,  is  the  one  Jewish  writer  who  might  be 
expected  to  tell  about  Jesus;  for  he  spent  his  early 
life  in  Jerusalem,  where  he  must  have  known  the  Chris- 
tians; and  his  greatest  historical  work,  "  Jewish  Anti- 
quities," tells  the  story  of  his  nation  from  its  beginning 
to  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion  against  the  Romans,  in 
A.  D.  66,  thus  including  the  period  when  Jesus  labored 
and  died.  But  we  must  bear  in  mind  two  facts  about 
Josephus — he  wrote  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  when 
the  feeling  of  the  Jews  against  the  Christians  was  bitter, 
and  he  wrote  to  laud  his  nation  to  the  Romans,  who 
considered  the  Christians  a  despicable  and  pestilential 
sect.  There  was  little  likelihood,  therefore,  that  he 
would  mention  Jesus,  if  he  could  avoid  it,  or  say  any- 
thing good  of  him  if  he  did  mention  him. 

In  this  connection  it  is  instructive  to  notice  what 
Josephus  has  to  say  about  John  the  Baptist  (Ant. 
18:5:2): 

"  Herod  slew  him  [John]  who  was  a  good  man,  and 
commanded  the  Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both  as  to 
righteousness  toward  one  another,  and  piety  toward 
God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism,  for  that  the  baptism 
would  be  acceptable  to  him  if  they  made  use  of  it,  not 
in  order  to  put  away  some  sins,  but  for  the  purification 
of  the  body — supposing  still  that  the  soul  was  thor- 
oughly purified  beforehand  by  righteousness.  Now, 
when  others  came  in  crowds  about  him,  for  they  were 


HEATHEN  AND   JEWISH  WRITINGS  7 

greatly  moved  by  hearing  his  words,  Herod,  who  feared 
lest  the  great  influence  John  had  over  the  people  might 
put  it  into  his  power  and  inclination  to  raise  a  rebel- 
lion— for  they  seemed  to  act  in  all  things  according  to 
his  advice — thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to  death,  to 
prevent  any  mischief  he  might  cause." 

The  omission  of  the  fact  that  John  preached  the  im- 
mediate coming  of  the  Messiah  leaves  the  excitement 
caused  by  his  preaching  wholly  unexplained.  Possibly 
Josephus  omitted  it  because  any  allusion  to  Messianic 
expectations  would  arouse  Roman  suspicions;  but 
more  probably  he  felt  that  by  mentioning  it  he  would 
be  put  in  the  same  dilemma  in  which  the  chief  priests 
were  put  by  Jesus  when  he  questioned  them  about 
John  (Matt.  21  :  25). 

In  Ant.  20  : 9  :  1  Josephus  tells  how  Ananus,  the 
high-priest,  about  the  year  A.  D.  62,  caused  several  per- 
sons to  be  stoned  to  death,  one  of  whom  was  James, 
"the  brother  of  Jesus,  who  was  called  the  Christ." 
This  mention  of  Jesus  and  his  claims,  if  genuine  (and 
the  argument  to  the  contrary  is  not  strong),  is  the  more 
emphatic  because  it  is  purely  incidental.  Almost  in 
spite  of  himself  Josephus  has  brought  Jesus  into  his 
narrative. 

The  fullest  notice  of  Jesus  is  in  Ant.  18  :  3  :  3,  as 
follows : 

"Now  about  this  time  lived  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  in- 
deed one  should  call  him  a  man ;  for  he  was  a  worker 


8       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  miracles,  a  teacher  of  such  men  as  receive  the  truth 
with  joy.  And  he  drew  to  himself  many  of  the  Jews, 
and  also  many  of  the  Greeks.  This  was  the  Christ. 
And  when  at  the  instigation  of  our  chief  men  Pilate 
had  sentenced  him  to  the  cross,  those  who  had  loved 
him  at  the  first  did  not  fall  away.  For  he  appeared 
unto  them  alive  again  on  the  third  day,  as  the  holy 
prophets  had  declared  these  and  ten  thousand  other 
wonderful  things  concerning  him.  And  even  now  the 
race  of  Christians  called  after  him  is  not  extinct." 

If  this  passage  were  genuine,  Josephus  would  be  a 
most  clear  witness  to  Christ;  but  unquestionably  it  is 
not  genuine — no  Jew  who  rejected  Jesus  could  write 
it.  It  is  found  in  all  existing  manuscripts,  but  none  of 
these  are  early;  and  Origen,  who  died  about  A.  D.  253, 
evidently  did  not  have  it  in  his  manuscript,  for  he  says 
expressly  that  Josephus  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ.  How  the  passage  originated,  we  can  only 
surmise.  Josephus  was  a  favorite  author  in  Christian 
circles  in  early  days  as  well  as  later.  It  is  possible 
therefore,  that  when  they  found  in  his  book  no  account 
of  Christ,  they  inserted  this  passage  to  supply  the  de- 
ficiency. Or  it  is  possible  that  Josephus  did  give  some 
slurring  account  of  Christ,  which  Christian  copyists 
changed,  as  they  certainly  would,  to  a  favorable  one. 
In  support  of  this  latter  possibility  we  notice  that  in  the 
section  immediately  following,  Josephus  tells  a  story 
that  has  no  connection  whatever  with  his  narrative. 


HEATHEN  AND  JEWISH  WRITINGS  9 

unless  he  had  cast  a  slur  on  the  divine  birth  of  Christ, 
and  wished  to  suggest  a  parallel  to  it.  But  whatever 
the  origin  of  this  famous  passage,  it  is  of  no  value  as 
contemporaneous  Jewish  testimony. 

One  more  Jewish  work  should  be  examined,  and  that 
is  the  Talmud.  The  name  means  a  "teaching"  or 
'*  inference,"  and  is  the  general  term  for  a  huge  collec- 
tion of  works  upon  the  traditional  law,  i.  e.,  the  law 
which  was  developed  by  the  scribes  and  handed  down 
orally,  as  distinguished  from  the  written  law  found  in 
the  Old  Testament.  It  consists  of  two  main  divisions 
— the  Mishna,  containing  these  traditional  laws,  and 
the  Gemara,  containing  discussions,  interpretations, 
illustrations,  etc.,  of  the  Mishna.  It  is  a  vast  store- 
house of  all  sorts  of  things,  ranging  from  sayings  that 
remind  us  of  teachings  of  Jesus  down  to  those  that  are 
the  dreariest  of  rubbish.  Edersheim  says:  "If  we 
imagine  something  combining  law  reports,  a  Rabbin- 
ical Hansard,  and  notes  of  a  theological  debating  club, 
— all  thoroughly  Oriental,  full  of  digressions,  anec- 
dotes, quaint  sayings,  fancies,  legends,  and  too  often 
of  what,  from  its  profanity,  superstition,  and  even  ob- 
scenity could  scarcely  be  quoted — we  may  form  some 
general  idea  of  what  the  Talmud  is."  ("  Life  of  Jesus," 
1  :  13.)  The  Talmud  is  the  product  of  centuries;  and 
the  Mishna  probably  was  not  put  into  writing  until 
at  least  the  end  of  the  second  Christian  century,  while 
the  Gemara,  of  which  we  have  two  forms  (the  Jerusa- 


10     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

lem  and  the  Babylon),  is  two  and  three  centuries 
later. 

In  the  Talmud  are  only  a  few  allusions  to  Christ, 
and  these  exhibit  great  prejudice  and  hatred.  Accord- 
ing to  them,  Jesus  was  born  of  adultery,  learned  magic 
in  Egypt,  led  the  people  into  sin,  was  entrapped  by 
witnesses,  tried,  kept  for  forty  days  that  a  witness  might 
appear  in  his  favor,  and  then — when  none  appeared — 
was  stoned  and  afterward  hanged,  and  in  Gehenna 
was  plunged  in  boiling  filth.  Evidendy  the  Talmud 
is  worthless  as  a  source  for  the  life  of  Christ;  and  its 
statements  are  valuable  only  as  showing  the  later  feel- 
ing of  the  Jews  toward  the  founder  of  the  hated  Chris- 
tian sect. 


CHAPTER  II 

CHRISTIAN  WRITINGS  OTHER  THAN  GOSPELS 

From  heathen  and  Jewish  sources,  which  give  us  so 
Httle,  we  turn  to  the  more  promising  Christian  sources. 
And  before  considering  the  various  gospels,  we  ex- 
amine other  early  writings  in  search  of  any  possible 
mention  of  Jesus. 

7.     New  Testament  Boohs 

In  the  New  Testament,  besides  the  Four  Gospels,  we 
have  twenty-three  other  books,  all  of  which  were  writ- 
ten in  the  first  century  or,  at  the  latest,  early  in  the  sec- 
ond century.  Whatever  they  tell  us  about  Jesus  is, 
therefore,  of  high  value  as  coming  from  the  age  of  the 
apostles  or  of  men  who  could  personally  have  known 
the  apostles. 

The  first  interesting  fact  about  them  is  that  they  give 
us  very  little  about  Jesus  in  addition  to  what  is  in  the 
Four  Gospels.  We  find  one  new  and  beautiful  saying 
of  his,  "It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive" 
(Acts  20  :  35);  and,  if  the  shorter  form  of  Luke's  ac- 
count of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  be  cor- 
rect, then  in  I  Cor.  11  :  24  we  have  for  the  first  time 
the  words,  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  Me."     In^I 

11 


.m^ 


12     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Thess.  4  :  15-17  there  seems  to  be  the  substance  of 
some  teaching  of  Jesus  about  his  second  coming.  In 
I  Cor.  15  :  5-8  we  have  a  list  of  his  resurrection  ap- 
pearances, more  complete  than  that  in  the  gospels,  while 
Acts  1  :  1-14  gives  the  fullest  account  we  have  of  his 
ascension  and  his  instructions  preceding  it.  These 
few  sayings  and  facts,  all  given  by  Paul  or  Luke,  com- 
prise practically  the  only  additional  information  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  seems  strange  that  there 
should  be  no  more.  Of  course  the  epistles  were  writ- 
ten to  readers  who  already  had  been  instructed  in  the 
facts  of  the  Christian  faith  (I  Cor.  11  :  23,  15  :  3;  II 
Thess.  2  :  5,  et  al.).  So  there  was  no  need  of  rehears- 
ing these  facts.  Moreover,  the  intense  realization  of 
a  present,  unseen  Christ,  and  the  earnest  expectation 
of  his  speedy  coming  again  in  the  flesh,  made  all  Chris- 
tians less  disposed  to  dwell  upon  the  historical  past. 
Yet  the  epistles  are  full  of  allusions  to  the  recorded  facts 
of  Christ's  earthly  years;  and  since  there  must  have 
been  many  facts  told  by  the  witnesses  besides  those  pre- 
served in  the  gospels  (c/.  John  20  :  30),  it  is  remark- 
able that  such  facts  are  ignored. 

The  second  interesting  fact  about  these  New  Testa- 
ment books  is  that  when  we  bring  together  their  scat- 
tered allusions  to  incidents  in  the  life  of  Christ,  we  have 
a  mass  of  information  from  which  we  can  frame  a  fairly 
complete  outline  of  that  life.  And  if  this  is  done  (see 
Gilbert,  "Life  of  Jesus,"  402)  we  find  that  the  oudine 


CHRISTIAN  WRITINGS  OTHER  THAN  GOSPELS     13 

agrees  perfectly  with  the  history  given  us  in  the  Four 
Gospels.  This  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  sceptics 
try  to  prove  that  our  gospels  are  a  late  invention,  full  of 
legendary  matter.  Here  is  another  record  of  the  life  of 
Christ — a  "gospel  outside  the  gospels" — which  would 
still  remain,  if  the  Four  Gospels  were  wholly  set  aside. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  these  New  Testament  books 
are  of  disputed  date  and  origin,  so  that  sceptics  may 
bring  the  same  charge  of  late  invention  against  them 
as  against  the  gospels.  But  there  are  four  great 
epistles — viz.,  I  and  II  Corinthians,  Galatians,  and 
Romans — which  practically  all  critics  agree  were  writ- 
ten by  Paul  and  before  A.  D.  60.  Whether  Paul  ever 
met  Jesus  before  the  crucifixion  is  doubtful;  but  he 
was  in  Jerusalem  soon  afterward;  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian within  a  few  years;  and  he  had  every  opportunity 
to  learn  about  him.  Natural  curiosity,  the  hatred  of 
a  persecutor,  the  perplexities  of  an  inquirer,  the  glow- 
ing love  of  a  convert,  and  the  increasing  responsibilities 
of  a  teacher,  would  make  Paul  eager  to  learn  all  that  he 
could — the  more  so  because  it  was  his  practice,  like 
that  of  the  other  apostles,  to  begin  missionary  work 
in  any  new  field  by  telling  the  story  of  Jesus,  especially 
of  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection  (See  I  Cor.  15  : 1-9. 
Cf.  Acts  13  :  16-41). 

What,  then,  can  we  gather  from  Paul's  four  undis- 
puted letters  ?  We  must  not  expect  too  much.  They 
are  written  to  Christians  who  already  know  the  story 


14     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  Jesus,  having  learned  it — most  of  them — from  Paul 
himself.  Whatever  he  says  about  that  story  will  be 
by  way  of  allusion  and  not  of  narration;  and  silence 
on  any  point  will  be  no  proof  of  ignorance  unless  there 
is  imperative  need  of  allusion.  In  simply  this  inci- 
dental way  we  learn  that  Paul  knows  (to  give  only  one 
reference  for  each  fact): 

The  birth  of  Jesus  under  the  law  (Gal.  4  :  4),  of 
the  seed  of  David  after  the  flesh,  but  the  Son  of  God 
and  the  Messiah  (Rom.  I  :  1-4). 

The  public  ministry,  with  its  limitation  to  the  Jews 
(Rom.  15  :  8);  its  humiliation  (II  Cor.  8:9);  its  band 
of  apostles,  whom  Paul  calls  by  the  early  name  of  the 
twelve  (I  Cor.  15  :  5),  and  the  miracles  which  were 
wrought  by  them  (II  Cor.  12  :  12). 

The  teachings  of  Jesus,  which  Paul  had  evidently 
taken  pains  to  learn  exactly  and  which  he  treats  as 
authoritative  (I  Cor.  7  :  10),  distinguishing  carefully 
between  them  and  his  own  opinions  (I  Cor.  7  :  25). 

The  character  of  Jesus,  as  the  ideal  of  wisdom  (I  Cor. 
1:30);  truth  (Rom.  9:1);  self-sacrificing  service 
(Rom.  15  :  1-3);  gentleness  and  sweet  reasonableness 
(II  Cor.  10  :  1),  and  love  (Gal.  2  :  20). 

The  details  of  the  Last  Supper,  which  Paul  gives 
more  exactly  than  the  synoptists  (I  Cor.  11  :  23-25); 
the  attitude  of  the  rulers  (I  Cor.  2:8);  the  betrayal 
(I  Cor.  11  :  23);  the  crucifixion  (II  Cor.  13  :4);  the 
burial  and  resurrection  on  the  third  day  (I  Cor.  15:^4). 


CHRISTIAN  WRITINGS  OTHER  THAN  GOSPELS     15 

The  appearances  to  the  disciples  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, of  which  there  is  given  a  fuller  list  than  by  the 
evangelists  (I  Cor.  15  :  5-8). 

These  references — which  might  be  increased — 
show  that  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  was  well  known  by 
both  Paul  and  his  readers;  indeed,  such  incidental  ref- 
erences are  more  suggestive  than  fuller  statements 
would  be,  for  they  presuppose  a  larger  acquaintance 
with  the  facts  in  order  to  make  them  intelligible.  And 
not  only  do  the  facts  thus  indicated  agree  perfectly  with 
the  gospel  story,  but  PauFs  whole  conception  of  Jesus 
harmonizes  with  that  presented  by  the  evangelists. 
Keim  sums  up  the  matter  by  saying:  "The  life  of  Jesus, 
as  presented  to  us  by  Paul,  is  indeed  rich  in  material — 
a  gospel  of  the  first  days — and  one  which,  in  spite  of 
its  insoluble  difiiculties,  would  enable  us  to  dispense 
with  any  further  gospel;  or  rather,  one  which  prom- 
ises illustration  and  assistance  of  every  kind  to  our 
gospels." 

IL     The  Apostolic  Fathers 

The  term  Apostolic  Fathers  is  used  to  designate  the 
earliest  Christian  writers  whose  works  are  not  in  the 
New  Testament.  They  all  wrote  before  A.  D.  150,  and 
might  be  considered  in  a  general  way  as  pupils  of  the 
apostles.  "They  were  good  men  rather  than  great 
men,  and  excelled  more  in  zeal  and  devotion  to  Christ 
than  in  literary  attainments  "  (Schafi");  and  while  their 


16     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

writings  were  often  read  in  the  early  church,  and  some 
of  them  are  found  in  the  same  manuscripts  with  the 
New  Testament  books,  we  feel  that  it  was  a  sound 
instinct  which  jBnally  set  them  aside  as  uninspired.  In- 
deed, one  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  the  marked  contrast  in  spiritual  elevation, 
wisdom,  and  power,  between  its  books  and  those  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers.  Their  writings,  of  which  few  have 
been  preserved,  were  simple,  earnest  Christian  mes- 
sages to  readers  whose  faith  in  Christ  was  already 
established.  The  only  exception  is  Justin  Martyr, 
who  belongs  to  this  period,  but  whose  able  defence  of 
Christianity  entitles  him  to  be  ranked  more  properly  as 
first  of  the  Apologists  who  in  the  next  half  century 
wrote  long  and  powerful  replies  to  heathen  assailants 
of  the  faith. 

While  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  especially  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, tell  much  about  the  life  of  Christ,  they  tell  almost 
nothing  in  addition  to  what  is  in  the  gospels.  Justin 
Martyr  says  that  he  was  born  in  a  cave,  that  his  work 
as  a  "  carpenter*'  was  to  make  yokes  and  ploughs,  and 
that  the  Jews  when  mocking  him  set  him  on  the  judg- 
ment seat  and  said,  "Judge  us" — all  of  which  seems 
credible.  He  also  says  that  as  Jesus  was  baptized  in 
the  Jordan,  '*  When  he  stepped  into  the  water,  a  fire 
was  kindled  in  the  Jordan,"  which  adds  to  the  scene 
a  theophany  similar  to  those  described  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament.   There  are,  also,  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  and 


CHRISTIAN  WRITINGS  OTHER  THAN  GOSPELS     17 

still  later  writers,  a  few  sayings  attributed  to  Jesus 
which  are  not  found  in  the  gospels,  and  which — from 
that  fact — are  often  designated  as  the  Agrapha,  i.  c.y 
unwritten.  None  of  them  can  compare  in  beauty  or 
importance  with  Acts  20  :  35.  The  following  are  a 
sample : 

"  They  who  wish  to  behold  me  and  lay  hold  on  my 
kingdom,  must  receive  me  by  affliction  and  suffering." 

"Be  approved  money-changers;  disapproving  some 
things,  but  holding  fast  to  that  which  is  good." 

"  In  whatsoever  things  I  may  find  you,  in  these  shall 
I  also  judge  you." 

"Ask  for  the  great  things,  and  the  small  shall  be 
added  unto  you;  ask  for  the  heavenly  things,  and  the 
earthly  shall  be  added  unto  you." 

"Never  rejoice  except  when  ye  have  looked  upon 
your  brother  in  love." 

"  He  that  wonders  shall  reign,  and  he  that  reigns 
shall  rest." 

It  is  doubtful  whether  any  of  these  sayings  are  genu- 
ine, though  the  best  of  them  may  contain  some  reminis- 
cence of  Christ's  teaching. 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  notice  the 
newly  discovered  sayings  of  Jesus  which  Grenfell  and 
Hunt  unearthed  at  the  site  of  Oxyrhynchus,  in  lower 
Egypt,  in  1897  and  1903.  The  first  to  be  discovered 
were  on  a  single  leaf  of  pap}Tus,  somewhat  broken 
and  illegible  and  beginning  with  the  middle  of  a  say- 


18     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

ing  continued  from  a  previous  leaf.  They  were  as 
follows : 

"...  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out 
the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye." 

"  Jesus  saith,  Except  ye  fast  to  the  world,  ye  shall  in 
no  wise  find  the  Kingdom  of  God;  and  except  ye  keep 
the  Sabbath,  ye  shall  not  see  the  Father." 

"  Jesus  saith,  I  stood  in  the  midst  of  the  world,  and 
in  the  flesh  was  I  seen  of  them;  and  I  found  all  men 
drunken,  and  none  found  I  athirst  among  them;  and 
my  soul  grieveth  over  the  sons  of  men  because  they  are 
blind  in  heart.  ..." 

"  Jesus  saith,  Wherever  there  are  .  .  .  and  there  is 
one  .  .  .  alone,  I  am  with  him.  Raise  the  stone  and 
there  thou  shalt  find  me;  cleave  the  wood,  and  there 
am  I." 

"  Jesus  saith,  A  prophet  is  not  acceptable  in  his  own 
country,  neither  does  a  physician  work  cures  upon  them 
that  know  him." 

"  Jesus  saith,  A  city  built  upon  the  top  of  a  high  hill 
and  established  can  neither  fall  nor  be  hid." 

The  later  discoveries  were  on  the  back  of  a  survey-list 
of  various  pieces  of  land,  and  have  suffered  still  greater 
mutilation.  Grenfell  and  Hunt  give  the  following  trans- 
lation of  them,  with  their  own  conjectural  restoration 
of  parts  of  the  missing  text  indicated  by  brackets: 

"These  are  the  [wonderful]  words  which  Jesus  the 
living  [Lord]  spake  to  .  .  .  and  Thomas;  and  he  said 


CHRISTIAN  WRITINGS  OTHER  THAN  GOSPELS     19 

unto  [them],  Every  one  that  hearkens  to  these  words 
shall  never  taste  of  death." 

"  Jesus  saith,  Let  not  him  who  seeks  .  .  .  cease  un- 
til he  finds,  and  when  he  finds  he  shall  be  astonished, 
and  astonished  he  shall  reach  the  kingdom,  and  hav- 
ing reached  the  kingdom  he  shall  rest." 

"  Jesus  saith  [Ye  ask  ?  who  are  those]  that  draw  us 
[to  the  kingdom,  if]  the  kingdom  is  in  heaven  ?  .  .  . 
the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  all  beasts  that  are  under  the 
earth  or  upon  the  earth,  and  the  fishes  of  the  sea  [these 
are  they  which  draw]  you,  and  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 
is  within  you,  and  whosoever  shall  know  himself  shall 
find  it.  [Strive  therefore  ?]  to  know  yourselves,  and  ye 
shall  be  aware  that  ye  are  the  sons  of  the  [almighty?] 
[Father,]  [and]  ye  shall  know  that  ye  are  in  [the  city 
of  God  ?],  and  ye  are  [the  city]." 

"Jesus  saith,  A  man  shall  not  hesitate  ...  to  ask 
.  .  .  concerning  his  place  [in  the  kingdom.  Ye  shall 
know]  that  many  that  are  first  shall  be  last,  and  the 
last  first  and  [they  shall  have  eternal  life  ?]." 

"  Jesus  saith.  Everything  that  is  not  before  thy  face, 
and  that  which  is  hidden  from  thee,  shall  be  revealed 
to  thee.  For  there  is  nothing  hidden  which  shall  not  be 
made  manifest;  nor  buried  which  shall  not  be  raised." 

"  His  disciples  question  him,  and  say.  How  shall  we 
fast  and  how  shall  we  [pray]?  .  .  .  and  what  [com- 
mandment] shall  we  keep  .  .  .  Jesus  saith  ...  do 
not  ...  of  truth  .  .  .  blessed  is  he  .  .  .   " 


20     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

These  two  groups  of  sayings  seem  to  have  belonged 
to  one  original  collection,  whose  date  critics  put  some- 
where in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  The 
source  of  this  collection,  and  consequently  its  value, 
cannot  with  the  present  data  be  determined.  The  say- 
ings may  be  based  upon  those  in  the  Four  Gospels,  in 
which  case  the  new  material  is  the  product  of  later 
speculation,  and  is  of  little  value  except  as  revealing 
the  development  of  Christian  thought  in  the  second 
century;  or  the  sayings  may  present  one  form  in  which 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  handed  down  by  tradition, 
in  which  case  they  could  be  used  as  a  source,  though  not 
a  first-class  one,  for  his  words.  In  a  minute  study  of 
the  problems  connected  with  the  origin  and  character 
of  the  Four  Gospels  these  new  sayings  may  give  a  little 
help;  but  they  are  of  small  importance  otherwise,  ex- 
cept as  their  discovery  draws  our  thought  to  the  treas- 
ures that  may  yet  be  found  in  that  wonderful  land  of 
Egypt,  where  the  things  of  yesterday  seem  old  and 
crumbling,  while  the  things  of  centuries  ago  are  fresh 
and  perfectly  preserved. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS 

The  word  apocryphal  has  had  a  long  and  interesting 
history  through  which  it  has  gained  several  distinct 
and  widely  unlike  meanings.  Uncanonical  is  one 
meaning;  and  any  gospel  that  failed  to  gain  a  place  in 
the  list  (canon)  of  the  New  Testament  books  may  for 
that  reason  be  called  an  apocryphal  gospel.  Spurious 
and,  therefore,  untrustworthy,  is  another  meaning;  and 
a  gospel  that  is  a  mere  fabrication  with  no  historical 
value  may  for  that  reason  be  called  an  apocryphal  gos- 
pel. This  gives  rise  to  confusion  and  unfair  treatment 
when  apocryphal  gospels  are  discussed.  All  of  them 
are  uncanonical,  but  only  some  of  them  are  worthless; 
yet  they  are  spoken  of  sometimes  as  if  they  all  were 
beneath  serious  attention,  and  at  other  times  as  if  they 
all  stood  on  a  level  with  the  canonical  gospels,  and  had 
been  kept  out  of  the  New  Testament  by  accident  or 
prejudice.  We  may  avoid  this  confusion,  and  under- 
stand what  basis  there  is  for  each  of  these  opinions,  by 
dividing  the  apocryphal  gospels  into  two  classes,  and 
considering  each  separately. 

21 


22     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

1.     The  Rejected  Gospels 

There  are  certain  chapters  in  the  history  of  Jesus 
that  are  passed  over  in  partial  or  complete  silence  by 
the  New  Testament  writers,  which  appeal  deeply  to 
human  curiosity.  We  should  like  to  know  more  about 
Mary  and  Joseph,  and  the  home  in  Nazareth,  and  the 
years  which  Jesus  as  a  boy  and  man  spent  there;  and 
we  should  like  to  know  something  about  the  mysterious 
period  between  his  death  and  resurrection,  when, 
though  his  body  was  lying  in  the  new  sepulchre,  his 
spirit  must  have  been  active  somewhere  and  in  some 
way.  Reverence  and  a  recognition  of  the  hopelessness 
of  the  task  keep  us  from  any  serious  attempt  to  fill  in 
these  unwTitten  chapters.  But  there  were  early  writers 
who  were  not  thus  restrained ;  and  they  set  forth  in  the 
form  of  gospels  their  ideas  as  to  what  these  portions  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  must  have  been.  Such  gospels  are,  of 
course,  apocryphal  in  the  sense  of  wholly  untrust- 
worthy; and  because  intelligent  readers  never  took 
them  seriously,  we  may  call  them  rejected  gospels. 
Still,  as  religious  romances — the  Ben  Hurs  of  their  day 
— they  had  a  wide  circulation;  and  ignorant  people 
undoubtedly  gave  them  more  or  less  credence.  A  num- 
ber of  them  are  preserved  and  will  be  found  in  any  col- 
lection of  the  writings  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers. 
A  list  of  them,  with  a  hint  of  their  contents,  is  as 
follows: 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS  23 

The  Protevangelium  of  James — a  history  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary  from  the  incidents  connected  with  her  birth 
to  Herod's  murder  of  the  babes  at  Bethlehem. 

The  Gospel  of  Thomas — incidents  in  the  boyhood  of 
Jesus  in  the  years  from  five  to  twelve. 

The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus — in  two  parts,  usually 
known  as  The  Acts  of  Pilate  and  The  Descent  into 
Hades;  the  former  gives  various  incidents  of  the  trial, 
death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  the  latter  de- 
scribes the  scenes  in  the  w^orld  of  the  dead  when  he 
appeared  there  after  his  death. 

The  Gospel  of  Pseudo-Matthew — a  history  of  Mary 
and  of  Jesus'  boyhood. 

The  Gospel  of  the  Nativity  of  Mary — practically  an 
orthodox  revision  of  the  first  part  of  Psuedo-Matthew. 

The  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy — partly  a  repro- 
duction of  the  Protevangelium  of  James  and  the  Gospel 
of  Thomas,  and  partly  wild  legends  resembling  the 
tales  in  the  Arabian  Nights. 

The  History  of  Joseph  the  Carpenter — an  account 
of  his  life,  and  more  fully  of  his  death,  supposed  to  be 
told  by  Jesus  to  his  disciples. 

The  Passing  of  Mary — an  account  in  several  forms 
of  the  death  and  assumption  of  Mary. 

Of  the  above  works  the  first  two  were  probably  writ- 
ten between  the  middle  and  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury; part  of  the  Acts  of  Pilate  may  be  of  as  early  a 
date,  though  the  evidence  is  weak;  the  other  books  are 


24     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

a  century  or  two  later.  They  are  directly  valuable  as 
the  storehouse  from  which  popular  thought  and  pic- 
torial art  drew  largely  in  the  Middle  Ages,  especially 
as  regards  the  Virgin  Mary.  To  understand  the  story 
of  the  Madonna,  as  portrayed  by  the  great  artists,  one 
must  study  these  gospels.  They  are  indirectly  even 
more  valuable  as  a  proof  of  the  trustworthiness  of  our 
Four  Gospels.  When  it  is  said  that  what  the  New 
Testament  tells  us  about  Jesus  is  mainly  the  invention 
of  later  days,  we  have  only  to  turn  to  these  rejected  gos- 
pels if  we  would  know  what  the  invention  of  later  days 
would  produce.  Their  stories  of  Jesus'  boyhood,  for 
example,  are  either  silly  or  monstrous.  The  Gospel  of 
Thomas  tells  how  he  made  pigeons  of  clay,  and  by  a 
miracle  caused  them  to  fly;  how  he  overwhelmed  his 
school  teachers  with  shame  by  displaying  his  superior 
knowledge;  how  he  was  angry  with  Joseph  when  he 
corrected  him;  how  he  cursed  his  playmates,  caus- 
ing one  to  become  impotent,  and  another  to  fall  dead, 
so  that  "no  one  dared  to  make  him  angry";  and  the 
other  gospels  contain  stories  equally  or  even  more  re- 
pulsive. If  such  things  are  what  Christians  of  the  sec- 
ond century  would  invent,  when  they  tried  their  im- 
agination upon  the  life  of  Christ,  we  may  rest  assured 
that  the  story  told  in  the  Four  Gospels  is  not  of  their 
invention. 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS  25 

11.     The  Discarded  Gospeb 

The  preface  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke  begins  with  the 
statement  that "  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a 
narrative  concerning  those  matters  which  have  been 
fulfilled  among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us 
who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  min- 
isters of  the  word."  As  we  shall  see  later  on,  Luke 
probably  knew  of  Mark's  gospel  and  of  some  writing 
by  Matthew,  but  these  alone  would  not  be  enough  to 
justify  his  statement  that "  many"  were  writing  gospels. 
Evidently  Luke  lived  at  a  time  when  there  was  a  gen- 
eral demand  for  some  written  account  of  Christ's 
words  and  deeds,  and  when  authors  who  could  draw 
up  such  an  account  were  busy  in  doing  so.  It  is  worth 
while  to  consider  briefly  just  how  such  a  demand  arose. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  Apostolic  Age  there  was  little 
incentive  to  write  a  biography  of  Jesus.  He  was  ex- 
pected to  return  very  soon;  his  spiritual  presence  was 
deeply  realized;  and  his  brief  earthly  ministry  seemed 
only  a  necessary  preliminary  of  the  glorious  Kingdom 
of  God.  To  dwell  upon  the  Jesus  of  the  past  would 
be  disloyalty  to  the  Jesus  of  the  present,  and  disbelief 
in  the  Jesus  of  the  glorious  future.  Nevertheless, 
there  were  many  inducements  to  tell  something  about 
his  earthly  life.  In  preaching  to  the  Jews  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  any  events  fulfilling  prophecy  would 
be  rehearsed;  in  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  that  Jesus 


26     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

was  the  Son  of  God,  his  miracles  and  his  words  of 
superhuman  authority  would  be  strong  arguments; 
and  in  preaching  to  any  class  of  hearers,  the  story  of 
his  death  and  resurrection  would  be  the  best  means 
of  winning  converts.  And  in  their  own  daily  life  the 
Christians  would  be  constantly  turning  back  to  the 
example  and  teachings  of  Jesus  for  guidance  and  com- 
fort, or  pondering  upon  his  deeper  sayings  for  light 
upon  the  mysteries  of  the  present  and  the  future.  So 
the  story  of  Jesus,  or  at  least  portions  of  it,  would  be 
in  constant  circulation  from  the  earliest  days. 

At  the  outset  the  story  was,  of  course,  wholly  oral. 
The  presence  of  eye-witnesses  obviated  the  necessity  of 
resorting  to  written  documents;  and,  moreover,  the 
Jews  shared  the  Oriental  feeling,  that  religious  truth 
ought  to  pass  from  teacher  to  learner  by  word  of  mouth 
and  not  by  writing.  All  the  great  mass  of  the  Talmud 
was  for  generations  handed  down  orally,  and  its  final 
reduction  to  writing  was  opposed  by  many.  And  the 
same  preference  for  oral  teaching  is  expressed  by  Pa- 
pias,  a  Christian  of  the  second  century,  when  speaking 
of  learning  about  Christ's  life:  "I  did  not  think  that 
what  was  to  be  gotten  from  the  books  would  profit 
me  as  much  as  what  came  from  the  living  and  abiding 
voice."  Such  oral  accounts  of  what  Jesus  said  and 
did  would  have  a  more  or  less  stereotyped  form,  partly 
because  any  account  often  repeated  grows  stereotyped 
in  form,  and  still  more  because  the  tenacious  Oriental 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS  27 

memory  reproduces  exactly  whatever  has  been  deliv- 
ered to  it. 

As  time  went  on,  and  Christianity  spread,  the  need 
of  WTitten  records  would  be  felt,  especially  by  Gentile 
converts,  who  were  away  from  the  eye-witnesses,  and 
did  not  share  the  Oriental  feeling  about  books.  In 
response  to  it  there  would  be  produced,  not  biogra- 
phies of  Christ,  but  written  copies  of  these  oral  group- 
ings of  his  teachings  on  some  special  subject,  or  of  his 
deeds  as  illustrating  or  confirming  some  point  of  Chris- 
tian faith.  His  words  would  naturally  be  put  in  writ- 
ing first,  because  it  is  more  important,  and  also  more 
diflScult  to  retain  them  exactly  in  their  original  form. 
Accordingly,  we  may  suppose  that  by  the  middle  of  the 
Apostolic  Age  there  had  come  into  existence  in  various 
places  little  books  of  Christ's  sayings  upon  various 
topics  {e.  g.f  his  parables  about  the  kingdom,  his 
teachings  about  the  second  coming,  his  missionary 
instructions,  his  lessons  on  the  greatness  of  service), 
with  or  without  some  brief  statement  of  the  circum- 
stances under  which  they  were  spoken,  and  also  little 
books  telling  of  certain  of  his  deeds  that  bore  upon 
some  special  matter  of  interest  (e.  g.,  miracles  that 
displayed  his  love  or  his  divinity,  acts  that  showed 
his  attitude  toward  the  Sabbath,  the  story  of  his 
passion  or  of  his  resurrection),  all  put  together  with 
no  thought  of  chronology  and  no  aim  at  a  complete 
history. 

The  decade  A.  D.  60-70  wrought  a  marked  change  in 


28     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Christian  thought.  Nero's  persecution  of  the  Chris- 
tians in  A.  D.  64  was  the  first  great  act  of  hostiHty  on 
the  part  of  the  Roman  government;  and  while  it  was 
brief  and  confined  to  Rome,  it  must  have  caused  a 
shock  of  horror  and  a  sense  of  fear  in  every  Christian 
circle.  And  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70 
both  made  an  end  of  the  church  which  had  stood  as  the 
mother  of  them  all,  and  forced  a  reconstruction  of  Mes- 
sianic ideas  and  expectations. 

It  was  at  this  period  that  the  importance  of  putting  in 
permanent  form  some  record  of  Christ's  earthly  years 
seems  to  have  been  suddenly  and  strongly  felt.  The 
expectation  of  his  speedy  second  coming  had  grown 
less  keen,  so  that  men  began  to  arrange  for  the  pro- 
longed existence  of  the  church  before  that  event.  The 
sense  of  his  spiritual  presence  was  perhaps  less  strong, 
so  that  the  guidance  to  be  drawn  from  his  earthly 
words  and  deeds  assumed  new  importance.  And, 
above  all,  the  apostles  and  eye-witnesses  were  rapidly 
dying  off;  and  unless  means  were  taken  to  preserve 
their  story,  it  might  soon  be  garbled  or  wholly  lost. 
So  men  began  to  write  gospels,  impelled  to  this  not 
by  the  historical  spirit,  but  by  practical  wants,  aiming 
not  at  completeness  or  exact  chronology,  but  at  the 
preservation  of  whatever  they  considered  most  im- 
portant and  helpful  in  the  life  of  Christ. 

They  took  the  material  that  lay  at  hand — the  written 
records  that  they  possessed  and  the  oral  accounts  that 
were  in  their  memories — and  they  wove  it  together  as 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS  29 

best  they  could.  And  when  their  work  was  completed, 
they  offered  it  to  the  Christian  circles  in  which  they 
lived  as  their  humble  contribution  toward  keeping 
alive  the  memory  of  what  the  Lord  had  said  and  done 
in  the  precious  years  of  his  earthly  ministry.  There 
was  no  thought  that  in  thus  writing  down  the  story  of 
Jesus  they  were  doing  a  w^ork  more  sacred  or  requiring 
more  inspiration  than  the  work  of  their  companions, 
who  simply  told  orally  the  same  story.  And  Luke 
sets  forth  very  clearly  what  he  considered  the  essential 
qualifications  and  also  the  purpose  of  an  evangelist, 
when  he  says,  "  It  seemed  good  to  me,  also,  having 
traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first, 
to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus, 
that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  concerning  those 
things  wherein  thou  wast  taught  by  word  of  mouth." 
How  many  such  gospels  were  written,  both  before 
and  after  Luke  wrote  his,  we  shall  never  know.  Of 
some  w^e  have  fragments  or  quotations  in  early  writers; 
of  some  we  have  only  the  names;  and  doubtless  there 
were  still  others.  There  is  always  the  hope  that  some- 
where in  the  sands  of  Egypt  they  may  be  waiting  dis- 
covery; but  probably  they  have  served  their  day  and 
wholly  passed  away.  For  a  time  they  had  more  or 
less  circulation — indeed,  some  of  them  were  popular; 
but  eventually  they  were  discarded  for  our  canonical 
gospels.  The  reason  for  this  was  because  either  they 
contained  nothing  except  what  could  be  found  in  bet- 


80     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

ter  and  more  complete  form  in  the  canonical  gospels, 
or  else  there  had  crept  into  them  statements  and  teach- 
ings which  the  good  judgment  of  the  orthodox  church 
could  not  endorse.  When  thus  discarded,  their  dis- 
appearance was  natural.  Copies  would  not  be  mul- 
tiplied, and  those  in  existence  would  be  worn  out  or 
lost.  And  in  the  time  of  Diocletian,  when  a  special  at- 
tempt was  made  by  Roman  persecutors  to  destroy 
the  Christian  sacred  books,  these  discarded  gospels 
would  be  cheerfully  surrendered  to  the  inquisitor's 
fire,  if  by  so  doing  the  canonical  gospels  could  be 
kept  back. 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  is  the  most 
famous  of  these  discarded  gospels.  It  is  quoted  by 
writers  from  the  end  of  the  second  century  to  the  fifth 
century;  and  there  is  some  evidence  that  it  was  in  ex- 
istence five  centuries  later.  Possibly  we  may  yet  find 
a  copy  of  it;  but  all  that  we  know  about  it  now  is  from 
the  quotations  and  statements  in  these  writers.  It 
seems  to  have  been  a  gospel  written  in  Aramaic,  and 
circulating  among  the  Hebrew  Christians.  Apparently 
there  were  various  forms  of  it — revisions  and  additions 
from  time  to  time;  and  it  was  eventually  translated  into 
Greek.  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  its 
origin  and  value,  and  it  still  remains  "  one  of  the  prob- 
lems and  enigmas  of  early  Christian  literature"  (Mof- 
fatt).  Some  scholars  set  it  aside  as  a  compilation  from 
the  first  three  canonical  gospels,  with  worthless  addi- 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS  31 

tions  and  changes;  others  emphasize  it  as  completely 
independent  of  our  gospels  and  of  equal  value  with 
them  {e.  g.,  Holtzmann,  "Life  of  Jesus,"  51).  An  early 
tradition  says  that  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel  in  He- 
brew (probably  Aramaic);  and  an  attempt  has  been 
made  to  prove  that  the  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews was  Matthew's  Hebrew  gospel;  but  this  is  now 
abandoned.  To-day  scholars  are  fairly  well  agreed 
that  in  its  original  form  this  gospel  may  be  as  early  as 
those  in  the  New  Testament;  and  if  we  had  it  in  this 
form,  it  w^ould  be  a  valuable  source  for  the  life  of  Christ. 
But  as  we  only  have  a  couple  of  dozen  quotations,  and 
no  means  of  telling  whether  these  are  from  an  early  or 
a  late  form  of  the  book,  the  gospel  is  of  little  value. 
Nevertheless,  its  fragments  are  interesting,  if  only  to 
show  why  the  church  finally  refused  to  accept  it  as  an 
authoritative  work.     Some  of  them  are  as  follows : 

(Before  the  Baptism.)  "Behold  the  Lord's  mother 
and  brothers  said  to  him,  John  the  Baptist  is  baptizing 
for  remission  of  sins;  let  us  go  and  be  baptized  by  him. 
But  he  said  to  them.  What  sin  have  I  done  that  I  should 
go  and  be  baptized  by  him — unless,  perhaps,  what  I 
have  now  said  is  ignorance." 

(At  the  Baptism.)  "  It  came  to  pass  when  the  Lord 
had  ascended  out  of  the  water,  the  whole  fountain  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  came  down  and  rested  upon  him,  and 
said  to  him,  My  son,  in  all  the  prophets  I  was  looking 
for  thee,  that  thou  shouldst  come,  and  that  I  should 


:V2     INTirODlK^MON  TO  'IMIK  LIKK  iW  (MllMST 

rcsl  ill  i\\rv.  l\n'  llioii  :ir(  my  rest;  thou  nri  my  first- 
born son,  \nIio  r<Mt;n(\s|  lo  ol(M-iiily." 

(At  i\w  'r(Miii)tnlion?)  '''V\w  Holy  Spiril,  my 
motlirr,  took  mo  just  now  by  ono  of  my  hairs,  and  car- 
ried mc  away  to  the  groat  Mount  Tjibor." 

(Tbo  a])])oal  to  Josus  by  tho  man  with  a  withorotl 
hand,  Mnrk  ',\  :  1  ().)  "  I  was  a  bnihhM*,  sooking  my 
hvin«j:  with  my  hands;  I  pray  thee,  Jesus,  rostoro  to 
mo  my  hoahh,  that  T  may  not  hastily  bof:^  my  broad." 

(Al'(or  Iho  Ivosnrroolion.)  "Tho  Lord,  al'tor  hand- 
ing ovor  Iho  hntMi  ololh  to  iho  sorvani  of  (ho  high-priost, 
wont  (o  Janu>s  and  aj)poar(>(l  lo  him;  for  Jamos  had 
sworn  ht*  wonid  oat  no  bri^ad  from  (ho  hour  at  wldoh 
tho  Lord  had  (h*nidv  thoonj)  till  lio  shonid  soo  him  rising 
again  from  thostMvho  aro  asU'op.  .  .  .  Bring,  tho  Lord 
says,  a  lablo  and  broad.  .  .  .  \\c  took  broad  and 
blossod  and  broko  it,  and  gave  it  to  Jamos  tho  Just,  and 
said  to  him,  l\Iy  brotluM',  oat  thy  broad,  for  tho  Son  of 
ISlan  is  rison  from  Ihoso  who  an^  ashn*})." 

(In  lh(»  Lord's  Lrayor.)  *'CJivo  us  to-(hiy  broad  for 
to-morrow." 

In  tho  ])arabl(*  of  tho  talonts  dio  man  who  had  hid 
his  taltMit  is  simply  robnkod;  and  it  is  anodior  sorvant, 
ono  who  has  s]>ont  his  talonts  upon  harlots  and  lluto- 
players,  that  is  oast  into  tht^  ontor  darknoss. 

Eusobins  (3  :  29)  tolls  us  duit  tho  (lospol  aocording 
to  tho  llobrows  oontainod  tho  story  of  a  woman  who 
was  aoousod  of  many  sins  boforo  tho  Lord.     Possibly 


TllK   ArOCKVIMlAI.   COSIMH.S  33 

tliis  was  the  story  of  tho  woman  tnktMi  in  jidiilttMy, 
which  (Ti'tainly  (hu\s  not  brlong  in  .John's  (Jospcl, 
where  we  now  have  it. 

The  (h.s'prl  acvordhuj  to  the  EiJiiptUius  Is  first  men- 
tioned al>ont  A.  1).  200,  and  is  nain(«d  l>y  only  three 
writers,  tlion^h  possibly  others  may  luive  ipioted  from 
it.  One  tlieory  uhont  the  new-fonnd  sayin«j;s  of  .lesns 
(see  p.  17)  is  that  they  an-  <>\li;i(ls  from  this  ^osjx'l. 
The  (Jnosties  were  fond  of  it;  hnt  win>ther  it  ori<^n- 
nated  anion*:;  them,  or  was  achipted  hy  them  from  an 
earlicM-  sonree,  cannot  he  (iet(M  iniiuMJ.  The  few  quota- 
tions we  iiave  from  it  are  not  worlh  citing. 

The  Gospel  of  Peter  is  a,  work  ahont  which  we  knew 
hut  httle  until  a  fra<i;ment  of  it  was  discovered  in  I  Ij>per 
h'i^ypt  in  tile  tomi)  of  a.  monk  a  few  years  a|:;o.  .Iiid^- 
\\v^  from  this  fra<;'menl,  which  l>e;;ins  with  IMInle's 
washin<i;  his  hands  and  breaks  oil'  with  Simon  Peler's 
goin^  afishin«jj,  the  hook  was  written  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, usin<;  our  p)spels  as  its  basis,  and  was  intended 
to  sup|)ort  certain  fornjs  of  heretical  thoti<jjht  which 
then  llom-Ishcd.  'I'he  fia<;incnt  is  too  long  to  (pi(>le; 
and  its  numerous  variations  from  the  "gospel  story, 
while  interesting  as  a  revelation  of  later  thought,  are  of 
no  historical  value. 

Tliorc  arc  references  In  early  wrillngs  to  other  gos- 
pels about  which  we  know  little  or  nothing  mor<'  than 
the  names,  e.  (/.,( los])el  of  Amh'cw,  ( Josp(«l  of  Barnabas, 
(lospel  of   Bartholomew,  (Jospel  of  the  'I'welve,  and 


34     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

possibly  twenty  others.  Any  conjecture  concerning 
their  contents,  and  any  attempt  to  classify  them  as  re- 
jected or  discarded,  would  be  idle. 

This  completes  our  examination  of  the  sources  other 
than  the  canonical  gospels,  and  we  cannot  fail  to  be 
impressed  with  the  meagreness  of  its  results.  "  It  is  a 
significant  fact,"  says  Keim,  "that,  as  far  as  can  be 
discovered  from  these  [apocryphal]  gospels  and  from 
the  untenable  notices  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  at 
the  end  of  a  hundred  years  after  Christ,  every  indepen- 
dent and  really  valuable  tradition  concerning  this  life, 
outside  of  our  gospels,  was  extinguished;  and  that 
nothing  more  than  a  growing  mass  of  fables  runs,  as  a 
pretended  supplement,  by  the  side  of  the  latter" 
(Jesus  of  Nazara,  1  :  45). 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  CANON  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Our  examination  of  the  sources  has  shown  us  that 
practically  all  our  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Jesus  must 
be  derived  from  the  New  Testament,  and  also  that  the 
other  books  of  the  New  Testament  simply  confirm  and 
to  some  extent  repeat  the  story  given  in  the  Four  Gos- 
pels. Accordingly  our  investigation  must  henceforth 
centre  upon  these  gospels;  and  every  problem  pre- 
sented by  them  becomes  most  important.  Do  we  have 
them  in  their  original  form,  or — if  they  have  been  al- 
tered— can  we  recover  that  original  form  ?  When  were 
they  written  and  by  whom?  What  were  the  sources 
from  which  the  authors  gained  their  information  ?  Do 
they  give  us  authentic  history,  or  history  mixed  with 
later  legends  and  myths,  or  almost  nothing  that  is  his- 
torical ?  How  far  are  they  trustworthy  ? — that  is  the 
supreme  question. 

It  is  worth  while  to  notice,  however,  that  the  ques- 
tion whether  we  shall  believe  in  Christ  does  not  de- 
pend altogether  upon  the  question  whether  the  gos- 
pels and  the  whole  New  Testament  are  trustworthy. 
Unlike  Mohammedanism,  Christianity  is  not  a  religion 

35 


36     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

based  upon  a  book.  Jesus  neither  wrote  a  book  nor 
commanded  his  disciples  to  write  one.  Christianity 
lived  and  spread  for  many  years  without  any  sacred 
writings  of  its  own.  It  accepted  as  a  precious  inheri- 
tance from  the  Jews  their  sacred  writings — the  Old 
Testament — and  used  them  with  profit  "  for  teaching, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in 
righteousness"  (II  Tim.  3  :  16);  but  certainly  it  did 
not  draw  its  life  and  spiritual  strength  and  wisdom 
from  the  Jewish  writings.  The  promise  of  Christ  on 
the  night  before  his  crucifixion,  when  he  told  his  little 
flock  about  the  future,  was  not  that  they  should  have  a 
book  in  which  they  could  read  about  him,  but  that  he 
would  send  the  Comforter  to  teach  them,  and  that  he 
himself  would  be  with  them  and  manifest  himself 
unto  them.  Relying  upon  that  promise  the  apostles 
went  forth  to  win  the  world  to  faith  in  him.  He  was 
to  be  proclaimed  not  by  a  book  but  by  a  church  that 
was  his  continued  incarnation,  and  by  a  sacrament  that 
showed  forth  his  divine  sacrifice.  And  if  the  New 
Testament  never  had  been  written,  still  the  work  of 
winning  men  to  Christ  would  have  gone  steadily  on; 
and  belief  in  Christ  would  have  survived  and  spread 
through  the  centuries.  For  even  to-day  such  belief 
rests  for  its  ultimate  foundation  not  upon  proofs  that 
the  gospels  are  trustworthy,  but  upon  the  outward 
manifestation  of  his  presence  and  power  by  faithful  fol- 
lowers whose  lives  and  words  are  a  proclamation  of  his 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  GOSPELS  37 

gospel,  and  upon  the  inward  revelation  experienced 
by  a  soul  that  puts  its  trust  in  him.  If  through  some 
miracle  of  hostile  criticism,  the  gospels  should  be  en- 
tirely destroyed,  the  Christian  world  would  doubtless 
cry  in  sore  distress, "They  have  taken  away  my  Lord*'; 
but  the  cry  would  be  just  as  ignorant  and  needless  as 
when  Mary  Magdalene  first  uttered  it. 

Nevertheless,  when  we  consider  what  the  gospels 
have  been  to  the  church  throughout  the  centuries, 
there  seems  little  danger  of  overestimating  their  im- 
portance. They  may  not  be  absolutely  indispensable, 
but  they  certainly  are  most  helpful  for  a  knowledge  of 
what  the  Christ  once  was  and  therefore  still  is.  We 
may  reverently  believe  that  the  impulse  which  led  the 
early  Christians  to  record  Jesus'  words  and  deeds,  was 
a  divine  one;  and  that  the  same  divine  prompting  was 
the  real  cause  of  the  setting  apart  of  our  Four  Gospels 
as  sacred  books.  This  latter  work  is  the  subject  of  the 
present  chapter.  In  treating  of  the  discarded  gospels 
we  briefly  pointed  out  the  reasons  why  they  were  put 
away,  and  why  the  Four  Gospels  of  the  New  Testament 
alone  were  retained.  But  it  is  worth  while  to  consider 
the  process  of  selection  a  little  more  fully,  and  espe- 
cially how  these  Four  Gospels,  when  thus  selected, 
came  to  be  considered  inspired  books.  The  technical 
term  for  this  process  is  the  formation  of  the  canon;  and 
the  term  itself  may  require  a  preliminary  paragraph  of 
explanation. 


38     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  word  canon  is  derived  from  the  Greek  word  for 
a  reed,  and  its  original  meaning  was  a  measuring  stick 
— a  carpenter's  rule.  All  its  later  meanings,  which  are 
several,  have  grown  out  of  this  original  one,  and  have 
either  the  active  signification  of  a  measure  or  standard, 
or  else  the  passive  one  of  something  measured  or  pre- 
scribed. A  canonical  book  is  so  called  because  it  gives 
the  measure  or  rule  of  Christian  faith,  or  more  probably 
because  it  has  been  declared  by  the  church  to  come  up 
to  the  measure  or  standard  of  inspiration  required  of  a 
sacred  book.  In  other  words,  a  canonical  book  is  a 
book  that  is  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  Bible.  A  list  of 
such  books  is  called  a  canon,  e.  g.  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  formation  of  the  canon  of  the  gospels,  therefore, 
is  the  process  by  which  the  church  came  to  regard  cer- 
tain lives  of  Jesus  as  authoritative  and  inspired,  and 
placed  them  in  the  list  of  sacred  books  that  constitute 
the  New  Testament. 

The  Christian  church  began,  as  we  have  just  noticed, 
with  no  sacred  books  except  those  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Indeed,  it  could  have  no  others  because  at  the 
beginning  it  did  not  realize  that  it  was  anything  other 
than  one  part  of  the  Jewish  church — namely,  the  part 
that  accepted  Jesus  as  the  promised  Messiah.  It  ob- 
served the  Jewish  Sabbath — Saturday — as  a  sacred 
day,  and  w^orshipped  in  the  synagogues,  if  the  Jews 
did  not  object.     It  also  had  its  own  meetings  for  wor- 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  GOSPELS  39 

ship  and  Christian  instruction;  and  very  early  it  came 
to  hold  them  on  Sunday,  a  day  made  precious  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  At  these  meetings  the  central 
theme,  of  course,  was  the  one  which  could  not  be  dwelt 
upon  in  the  synagogue.  The  Old  Testament  was  here 
studied  for  the  light  it  threw  upon  Christ's  mission;  and 
the  recollections  of  those  who  had  known  Jesus  per- 
sonally, or  had  gathered  from  others  some  precious 
knowledge  of  his  life,  were  rehearsed  for  the  cheer  and 
instruction  of  all  present.  Later  on,  when  there  were 
books  or  booklets  containing  the  words  or  deeds  of 
Jesus,  these  would  be  read  aloud  for  the  same  purpose. 
The  individual  church  or  some  wealthy  member  of  it 
would  count  such  books  a  choice  possession,  and  when 
a  new  one  was  heard  of  that  was  fuller  or  better  would 
be  desirous  to  obtain  a  copy  of  it. 

Still  these  written  accounts  of  Christ  were  thought 
to  be  in  no  way  different,  except  in  form,  from  the  oral 
accounts;  and  the  preference  was  rather  for  the  oral. 
Papias,  who  was  born  about  A.  D.  70,  doubtless  ex- 
presses the  feeling  and  practice  of  the  majority  of  the 
Christians  of  his  time,  when  he  says,  in  a  passage  from 
which  we  have  already  quoted: 

"If  any  one  came  who  had  been  a  follower  of  the 
elders"  (i.  e.,  of  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  dis- 
ciples) "  I  questioned  him  in  regard  to  the  words  of  the 
elders — what  Andrew  or  what  Peter  said,  or  what  was 
said  by  Philip  or  by  Thomas  or  by  James  or  by  John 


40     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

or  by  Matthew,  or  by  any  other  of  the  disciples  of  the 
Lord;  and  what  things  Aristion  and  the  presbyter 
John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say.  For  I  did  not 
think  that  what  was  to  be  gotten  from  the  books  would 
profit  me  as  much  as  what  came  from  the  living  and 
abiding  voice"  (Eusebius  3  :  39). 

Unless  we  suppose  that  these  oral  accounts  were 
deemed  inspired  and  sacred,  which  is  evidently  absurd, 
the  books  which  were  acceptable  simply  as  a  substitute 
for  them,  could  not  have  been  esteemed  more  highly. 
The  teachings  of  Jesus  were  regarded  as  divine  and, 
therefore,  at  least  as  authoritative  as  anything  in  the 
Old  Testament;  but  there  was  no  thought  that  a  book 
in  which  they  were  recorded  became  from  that  fact  a 
divine  book.  If  a  Christian  of  the  time  of  Papias  or 
even  later  had  been  asked.  What  is  your  canon  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  ?  he  would  have  answered  by  giving 
the  list  of  those  books  alone  that  make  up  the  Old  Test- 
ament. 

Meanwhile  a  process  of  selection  was  going  on. 
When  a  church,  whose  gospel  contained  only  the  say- 
ings of  Jesus,  obtained  another  that  contained  the 
deeds  as  well  as  the  words,  it  would  discard  the  former 
for  the  latter.  So,  likewise,  it  would  prefer  a  gospel 
that  was  supposed  to  tell  the  story  as  gathered  directly 
from  the  lips  of  an  apostle,  to  one  of  more  doubtful 
authority.  And  if,  perchance,  the  gospel  it  was  read- 
ing contained  certain  statements  that  its  spiritual  sense 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  GOSPELS  41 

declared  not  consistent  with  the  Christ  it  knew  by 
personal  experience,  such  a  gospel  would  be  set  aside 
when  a  better  one  came  to  hand.  In  this  way  the 
promise  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Comforter's  mission 
as  teacher  (John  14  :  26)  was  being  fulfilled.  By  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  or  a  little  later,  practir 
cally  all  Christians  in  orthodox  circles  were  accepting 
the  Four  Gospels  now  in  the  New  Testament  as  the 
only  authoritative  ones.  The  others  were  either 
quietly  discarded,  or  else  were  cherished  by  those  only 
who  held  views  that  the  church  pronounced  heretical. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  church  now  had  a  canon  of  the 
gospels,  though  it  did  not  yet  realize  this  because  it 
had  not  begun  to  call  these  books  sacred  writings. 

In  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  a  great 
change  came  over  the  church.  Circumstances  forced 
the  rapid  development  of  creed  and  church  govern- 
ment and  the  idea  of  Christian  Scriptures.  Enemies 
appeared  in  the  bosom  of  the  church  itself,  and  their 
heretical  teachings  had  to  be  combated.  On  the  one 
hand  were  teachers  who  broke  with  the  past  entirely, 
and  claimed  that  they  themselves  were  the  recipients  of 
new  and  wonderful  revelations:  these  were  the  Montan- 
ists.  On  the  other  hand  were  sects  who  professed  to 
have  esoteric  knowledge  and  mysterious  books,  handed 
down  from  the  first  century,  in  which  new  meanings 
were  given  to  the  teachings  of  Christ:  these  were  the 
Gnostics. 


42     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  church  thus  confronted  and  put  on  its  defence, 
seems  to  have  felt  that  its  present  inspiration  was  not 
enough.  These  enemies  also  claimed  to  be  inspired, 
and  must  be  met  by  something  stronger  than  mere 
counterclaims;  so  the  church  emphasized  the  inspira- 
tion that  was  in  the  apostles.  And  because  the  heretics 
had  their  own  sacred  books,  or  claimed  the  right  to  re- 
ject any  Christian  books  that  did  not  agree  with  their 
own  teachings,  the  church  was  compelled  to  emphasize 
the  sacredness  and  consequent  authority  of  the  writ- 
ings it  had  accepted.  Almost  unconsciously  and  be- 
fore they  were  aware  of  it,  these  Christians  of  A.  D. 
180-200  had  put  their  treasured  volumes  on  the  same 
level  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  were  quoting  from 
them  as  inspired  and  authoritative.  The  canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  includes  the  canon  of  the 
gospels,  was  set  forth.  It  is  a  remarkable  change;  and 
yet  it  came  about  very  simply  and  naturally.  The 
books  were  there,  and  the  church  was  constantly  using 
them;  the  hour  had  come  when  their  divine  authority 
needed  to  be  clearly  proclaimed,  and  the  church  pro- 
claimed it.  The  sword  of  the  spirit  had  been  fash- 
ioned long  before;  but  it  was  not  recognized  to  be  a 
weapon  until  this  time  of  danger  when  the  church 
seized  it  and  used  it  for  battle. 

We  call  the  writers  of  this  period  the  Apologists, 
because  their  chief  labor  was  the  defense  of  the  faith 
against  its  enemies.    They  were  able  men,  and  many 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  GOSPELS  43 

of  them  had  been  heathen  scholars  and  philosophers 
before  they  were  converted  to  the  Christian  faith.  We 
have  much  of  their  writings  still  preserved,  and  can  tell 
just  what  books  they  thought  should  have  a  place  in 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament.  And  while  there 
was  not  full  agreement  as  to  certain  books,  of  which 
some  later  on  were  placed  in  the  New  Testament  and 
others  were  not,  there  was  full  agreement  as  to  the  gos- 
pels. Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  were  the  lives 
of  Christ,  and  the  only  lives  of  Christ,  that  the  Apolo- 
gists, speaking  for  the  church  of  their  day,  proclaimed 
sacred.  And  the  church  at  no  later  period  of  its  his- 
tory has  ever  shown  a  disposition  to  question  that  de- 
cision, or  a  desire  to  change  it.  Of  course,  there  are, 
as  there  have  always  been,  individual  scholars  who 
assail  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  some  one  gos- 
pel or  of  all  four;  but  such  assaults  produce  little  im- 
pression. The  church  patiently  meets  the  objections 
urged,  though  none  of  them  are  new,  and  sets  itself  to 
the  task  of  answering  them;  but  it  is  never  seriously 
disturbed;  for  its  faith  in  the  sacred  authority  of  the 
Four  Gospels  rests  on  a  deeper  foundation  than  any 
that  these  critics  can  undermine,  namely,  on  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  testifying  to  the  things  con- 
cerning himself. 

By  whom,  then,  was  the  canon  formed  ?  A  popular 
opinion  is  that  certain  great  councils  of  the  church, 
especially  those  at  Hippo,  in  A.  D.  393, and  at  Carthage, 


44     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

in  A.  D.  397  and  A.  D.  419,  definitely  determined  the 
New  Testament  canon.  But  really  all  that  these  coun- 
cils did  (as  also  the  one  at  Laodicea,  in  A.  D.  363,  if  it 
took  any  action)  was  to  publish  in  an  authoritative 
manner  the  list  of  the  twenty-seven  books  which  the 
church,  independent  of  the  council,  was  using  and 
deeming  sacred.  The  canon  was  already  made,  and 
it  was  not  made  by  any  council  or  any  one  leader:  the 
whole  body  of  Christians  had  a  voice  in  the  matter. 
And  we  may  push  our  conclusion  one  step  further. 
Deissmann,  speaking  of  the  New  Testament  as  litera- 
ture, says,  "  The  fact  that  scarcely  any  but  popular  and 
primitive  Christian  WTitings  found  their  way  into  the 
nascent  New  Testament,  is  a  brilliant  proof  of  the  un- 
erring tact  of  the  church  that  formed  the  canon."  Is 
this  not  equivalent  to  saying — whether  Deissmann 
would  admit  it  or  not — that  the  Spirit  of  God  working 
in  the  church,  guiding  the  selection  of  its  sacred  books, 
and  endorsing  their  spiritual  power  and  authority, 
was  the  real  agent  in  the  formation  of  the  canon  ? 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

In  a  critical  study  of  the  Four  Gospels,  the  first  ques- 
tion properly  is,  Have  these  books  come  down  to  us 
without  alteration  so  that  we  possess  the  text  in  its  orig- 
inal form  ?  .  And  that  the  answer  must  be  no,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  among  all  the  existing  manu- 
scripts no  two  exactly  agree.  Such  a  lack  of  agreement 
is  not  surprising,  because  the  very  earliest  of  these 
manuscripts  was  written  long  after  the  Apostolic  Age, 
and  is  the  result  of  copying  the  original  we  know  not 
how  many  times.  Until  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  as  we  have  seen,  no  special  sacredness  was 
attached  to  the  books,  such  as  would  lead  a  copyist  to 
take  unusual  pains  with  his  work;  and  the  men  who 
did  the  copying  were  often  without  special  training. 
A  humble  Christian  who  felt  that  he  would  like  to  pos- 
sess a  gospel  would  set  himself  in  his  spare  hours  to 
making  a  copy  of  the  one  his  church  or  some  friend 
owned,  or  would  hire  an  acquaintance  more  skilful  with 
the  pen  to  copy  it  for  him;  and  later  on  this  copy  might 
serve  as  the  original  for  another  copy  made  with  similar 

freedom.     How  great,  then,  the  possibility  that  in  the 

45 


46     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

course  of  time  all  sorts  of  errors — omissions,  altera- 
tions, insertions,  transpositions — might  creep  into  the 
text!  Even  in  later  centuries,  when  a  recognition  of 
the  sacredness  of  the  books  caused  more  care  in  secur- 
ing correct  copies,  errors  would  not  be  wholly  avoided, 
for  copying  is  a  process  always  liable  to  errors. 

Now,  can  we  by  any  means  correct  these  errors, 
and  thus  secure  a  text  which  reproduces  the  original 
words  of  the  evangelists  ?  This  is  a  far  more  difficult 
question  to  answer,  yet  the  answer  may  confidently  be 
yes.  The  work  of  securing  a  correct  text  belongs  to 
that  department  of  Biblical  study  known  as  textual 
criticism  or  (because  it  furnishes  the  foundation  for 
all  further  critical  work)  the  lower  criticism.  The 
material  at  hand  for  this  work  is  three-fold;  first,  ex- 
isting early  copies  of  the  gospel  in  Greek,  which  was 
probably  their  original  language;  second,  existing 
early  copies  in  other  languages  into  which  the  gospels 
were  soon  translated;  and  third,  any  early  Christian 
writings  containing  quotations  from  the  gospels.  All 
three,  of  course,  are  in  manuscript  form;  but  we  usu- 
ally call  only  the  first  the  manuscripts,  and  the  other 
two  the  versions  and  the  fathers. 

I.     The  Manuscripts 

In  the  early  Christian  centuries  the  cheapest,  hand- 
iest material  for  writing,  was  bits  of  broken  pottery — 
potsherds.     Ostraca  is  the  Greek  name  for  them — fa- 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  47 

miliar  to  us  through  the  word  ostracize.  They  would 
be  used  only  by  the  poorest  people,  and  would  seldom 
be  large  enough  to  contain  more  than  brief  documents 
— a  receipt,  a  memorandum,  a  short  letter,  a  quotation 
and  the  like.  Since  the  Christians  largely  belonged 
to  the  poorest  classes,  they  were  accustomed  to  use 
ostraca;  and  if  they  wished  to  preserve  for  their  own 
use  or  send  to  another  a  little  story  about  Jesus  or  a 
saying  of  his,  they  would  write  it  down  upon  a  pot- 
sherd. Once  written  upon  this  material  the  document 
was  almost  imperishable;  and  when  it  presently  found 
the  way  to  a  city  rubbish  heap,  it  would  wait  through 
the  centuries  for  the  spade  of  the  explorer.  Unfortu- 
nately the  explorer  has,  until  recently,  scorned  such 
humble  documents,  and  thrown  them  away  without 
examination.  Now  he  has  grown  more  appreciative, 
and  large  collections  of  ostraca  are  being  made.  Some 
of  these  (see  Deissmann,  "Light  from  the  Ancient 
East,"  41/.)  contain  verses  from  the  gospels;  and 
though  nothing  of  great  value  has  yet  been  found, 
there  is  the  possibility  that  at  any  time  we  may  run 
across  ostraca  most  precious  because  giving  gospel 
passages  in  the  form  in  which  they  circulated  freely  in 
the  earliest  days. 

The  ordinary  material  for  books  and  letters  in  the 
first  three  Christian  centuries  was  papyrus — from 
which  name  is  derived  our  word  paper.  It  was  made 
by  cutting  the  pith  of  the  papyrus  reed  into  thin  slices 


48     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  any  desired  length,  and  placing  upon  one  layer  of 
these  slices  another  layer  at  right  angles  to  the  first, 
with  glue  or  paste  between  the  two  to  hold  them  to- 
gether, and  then  pressing  them  and  smoothing  them. 
This  formed  a  page;  and  if  the  document  was  to  be  a 
long  one,  the  right-hand  side  of  one  page  was  glued  to 
the  left-hand  side  of  another,  until  a  long  strip  w^as 
formed;  and  the  whole  was  rolled  around  a  stick,  to 
which  the  last  page  was  fastened.  The  writing  on  a 
single  leaf  might  be  on  both  sides;  but  on  a  roll  or 
volume  it  was  only  on  the  inner  side  (which  would  be 
the  one  where  the  fibres  ran  horizontally),  and  was 
arranged  in  columns  a  few  inches  in  breadth  so  that 
they  could  be  conveniently  read  as  the  manuscript 
was  unrolled  with  the  right  hand  and  rolled  up  with 
the  left.  Papyrus  was  fragile — especially  as  it  grew 
dry  from  age — and,  unless  carefully  handled,  would 
crack  and  crumble.  A  roll  would  not  endure  many 
years  of  use :  so  we  need  not  be  surprised  that,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  fragments  found  in  Egypt,  no  papy- 
rus manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  are  known  to 
exist.  The  loss  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark — about 
which  we  will  speak  later — may  have  been  caused  by 
some  accident  to  the  last  page  of  the  roll  on  which  the 
gospel  was  written;  or  that  page,  which  was  next  the 
stick,  may  have  become  hopelessly  worn  and  broken 
before  any  one  roused  to  the  necessity  of  making  a 
new  copy. 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  49 

The  other  material  for  books  was  parchment,  the 
finer  forms  of  which  are  called  vellum.  It  was  made 
from  the  skin  of  sheep,  goats,  calves,  and  other  animals, 
by  removing  the  hair,  and  stretching,  scraping,  and 
rubbing  with  chalk  the  skin  until  it  became  thin,  flexi- 
ble, and  suited  for  receiving  ink.  Parchment  was 
vastly  superior  to  papyrus  in  durability,  but  it  was 
too  expensive  for  ordinary  use  by  poor  people.  Paul 
owned  some  parchments  which  he  valued  highly  (II 
Tim.  4  :  13);  probably  they  were  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  And  when  Christian  churches  began  to 
recognize  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
their  most  precious  treasure,  they  would  seek  to  have 
copies  on  parchment,  if  they  could  afford  it.  By  the 
third  or  fourth  century,  the  use  of  parchment  had 
generally  supplanted  that  of  papyrus. 

A  manuscript  with  leaves  like  a  modern  book  is  more 
convenient  than  a  roll,  especially  if  the  reader  wishes 
to  compare  different  portions  of  his  text,  as  he  often 
does  when  reading  the  New  Testament.  A  manu- 
script in  this  book  form  is  called  a  codex,  because  its 
shape  is  like  that  of  the  wooden  tablet  smeared  with 
wax,  which  was  used  for  writing  (Luke  1  :  63),  and 
bore  this  name.  Some  papyrus  manuscripts  were  cod- 
ices, though  the  leaves  were  too  brittle  for  frequent 
turning;  but  when  parchment  came  into  use  the  codex 
form  became  universal.  In  a  codex  both  sides  of  the 
page  were  used;  but  the  influence  of  the  roll  form  is 


50     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

shown  in  the  fact  that  the  writing  is  still  arranged  in 
columns — usually  two  on  a  page,  though  sometimes 
one  or  three  or  four. 

Manuscripts  were  very  rarely  dated;  so  their  age 
has  to  be  determined  in  various  ways.  The  material 
on  which  they  are  written  is  one  aid;  for  papyrus,  as 
we  have  noted,  went  out  of  use  early,  while  paper  made 
of  cotton  and  later  of  linen  rags,  did  not  come  into  use 
until  about  the  14th  century.  A  greater  aid  is  the  style 
of  writing;  for  fashions  in  penmanship  flourished  and 
passed  away  then  as  they  do  now;  and  an  expert  can 
determine  pretty  closely  the  time  when  a  manuscript 
was  written  from  the  style  of  its  writing. 

A  broad  division  of  manuscripts  according  to  style 
of  writing  is  into  uncials  or  majuscules  and  cursives 
or  minuscules.  Uncials  have  the  letters  unconnected 
and  of  the  same  size,  usually  rather  large,  with  no 
divisions  between  the  words,  and  very  little  punctua- 
tion. They  remind  one  of  the  epistle  a  small  boy 
prints  in  capitals,  beginning  MYDEARFATHER. 
Their  failure  to  punctuate  and  to  separate  the  words 
may  sometimes  make  the  sense  doubtful;  even  as  the 
English  sentence,  GODISNOWHERE,  may  be  most 
devout  or  atheistic.  The  cursives,  as  the  name  would 
imply,  are  written  in  a  running  hand,  i.  e.,  with  the  let- 
ters connected;  and  they  have  the  words  separated. 
In  the  early  centuries  the  cursive  writing  was  used  for 
business  and  incidental  purposes,  and  was  not  con- 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  51 

sidered  fine  enough  for  books;  but  in  the  ninth  century 
a  beautiful  cursive  hand  was  invented,  and  thenceforth 
it  was  used  for  all  manuscripts.  The  earliest  copies  of 
the  epistles  and  possibly  of  the  other  New  Testament 
books  were  probably  written  in  the  cursive  hand,  as 
being  only  incidental  writings  and  for  circulation 
among  poor  people;  but  when  they  rose  to  the  dignity 
and  value  of  sacred  books  they  were  copied  in  uncials; 
and  these  are  our  earliest  extant  manuscripts. 

The  gradual  development  of  a  system  of  punctuation 
furnishes  another  means  of  determining  the  age  of 
a  manuscript;  and  the  arrangement  of  the  lines,  the 
division  into  chapters  (though  not  our  present  one), 
and  the  notations  upon  the  margin  of  the  page,  are  still 
other  means  which  we  need  not  describe  in  detail. 
Enough  to  say  that,  in  spite  of  the  absence  of  dates, 
a  trained  scholar  can  in  most  cases  tell  within  less  than 
a  century  the  exact  age  of  any  manuscript. 

At  first,  of  course,  each  book  of  the  New  Testament 
circulated  as  a  separate  manuscript;  and  even  when 
they  were  brought  together,  they  were  rarely  all  put 
into  one  manuscript,  since  with  papyrus  this  would  be 
impossible,  and  with  parchment  the  book  would  be 
too  bulky  for  convenient  use  except  as  a  church  Bible. 
Usually  they  were  put  into  four  groups,  each  forming 
a  separate  manuscript,  viz.  the  Gospels,  Acts  and  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  the  Pauline  Epistles  including  He- 
brews, and  the  Apocalypse.     In  addition  to  these  there 


52     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

were,  as  early  as  the  fourth  century,  though  most  of 
the  extant  manuscripts  are  much  later,  lectionaries, 
{.  e.j  books  of  Scripture  lessons  arranged  for  reading 
in  church  services — the  extracts  being  at  first  from  the 
gospels,  and  later  on  also  from  Acts  and  the  Epistles. 
In  reckoning  the  number  of  existing  manuscripts  we 
count  each  separate  one,  whether  it  contains  the  whole 
New  Testament,  or  one  group,  or  a  single  book,  or 
merely  a  fragment.  Thus  reckoning  we  have,  besides 
the  lectionaries,  over  one  hundred  and  sixty  uncials, 
and  fully  three  thousand  cursives.  Of  course,  the 
number  of  manuscripts  containing  the  gospels,  either 
alone  or  with  the  other  portions  of  the  New  Testament, 
is  much  less;  nevertheless,  the  gospels  were  the  most 
often  copied,  and  constitute  a  majority  of  existing 
manuscripts.  In  order  to  distinguish  these  manu- 
scripts for  enumeration  and  discussion  the  cursives  are 
designated  by  Arabic  numerals,  and  the  uncials  by  let- 
ters of  the  Latin,  Greek,  and  Hebrew  alphabets.  And 
as  each  of  the  four  groups  is  treated  separately,  the 
same  manuscript,  if  it  contains  more  than  one  group, 
may  be  designated  by  different  numerals.  Recent 
scholars  are  seeking  a  new  system  of  enumeration  that 
shall  avoid  the  use  of  so  many  alphabets  for  the  un- 
cials, and  shall  give  the  same  designation  always  to  a 
particular  manuscript. 

No  scholar  professes  to  have  a  knowledge  of  all  this 
great  number  of  manuscripts — in  fact,  many  of  the 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  53 

cursives  have  never  been  carefully  examined.  But 
even  a  tyro  in  Biblical  criticism  ought  to  know  some- 
thing about  the  most  famous  of  the  uncials.  They  are 
the  following: 

CodiW  Alcxaiidrinus  (designated  by  A),  so-called 
because  it  once  belonged  to  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
is  in  the  British  Museum.  Its  date  is  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. It  has  two  columns  to  the  page;  and  while  it 
contains  most  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  lacks  in  the 
New  Testament  all  of  Matthew  to  25  :  6;  and  John 
6  :  50-8  :  52,  and  II  Cor.  4  :  13-12  :  7.  As  its  des- 
ignating letter  would  indicate,  it  was  the  first  of  the 
great  manuscripts  to  become  accessible  to  scholars. 

Codex  Valicanus  (B)  is  at  Rome  in  die  library  of 
the  Vatican.  Its  date  is  in  the  fourth  century.  It  has 
three  columns  to  the  page;  and  it  lacks  some  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  Hebrews  after  9  :  14,  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  Philemon,  and  the  Apocal^-pse. 
The  Vatican  has  counted  this  manuscript  among  its 
treasures  for  more  than  four  hundred  years;  it  was 
carried  off  to  Paris  by  Napoleon,  and  afterward  re- 
turned; but  only  very  recentiy  has  it  been  made  acces- 
sible to  scholars. 

Codex  Ephraemi  (C),  now  in  the  National  Library 
at  Paris,  is  of  the  fifth  century.  It  is  a  palimpsest,  /.  c., 
a  parchment  upon  which  the  original  WTiting  has  be- 
come very  dim  by  fading  or  by  deliberate  erasion,  and 
a  second  writing  has  been  placed  over  the  first.     The 


54     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

second  writing  in  this  case  is  the  works  of  Ephraem 
the  Syrian — hence  the  name  of  the  manuscript.  It 
has  but  one  column  on  a  page,  and  is  badly  stained  by 
the  use  of  chemicals  to  brighten  the  under  writing. 
Originally  it  contained  the  whole  Bible;  but  it  has  been 
pulled  to  pieces;  and  the  monk  who  wrote  on  it  the 
works  of  Ephraem  took  only  disconnected  leaves;  so 
most  of  the  Old  Testament  and  about  one  third  of  the 
New  Testament  are  missing.  Portions  remain  of  every 
book  in  the  New  Testament  except  II  Thess.  and  II 
John. 

Codex  Bezae  (D)  was  given  by  Beza,  A.  D.  1581,  to 
the  University  of  Cambridge,  England,  in  whose  library 
it  still  remains.  Its  date  is  early  in  the  sixth  century. 
It  has  one  column  to  the  page,  and  contains  only  the 
gospels  and  Acts,  with  some  leaves  missing.  Oppo- 
site each  page  of  the  Greek  is  a  Latin  translation;  and 
both  present  certain  peculiarities  of  text  which  must  be 
considered  later  on. 

Codex  Sinaiticus  (S)  was  discovered  by  Tischendorf 
about  fifty  years  ago  in  a  monastery  on  Mt.  Sinai,  and 
is  now  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  The 
story  of  its  discovery  is  most  interesting,  but  too  long  to 
be  rehearsed  here.  It  has  four  columns  to  a  page,  and 
contains  much  of  the  Old  Testament  and  all  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  well  as  some  other  early  Christian 
writings.  Its  date  is  in  the  fourth  century — about  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus.     Gregory  thinks 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  55 

that  both  of  these  codices  may  have  been  among  the 
fifty  fine  copies  of  the  Bible  which  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  in  A.  D.  331  asked  Eusebius  to  prepare  for 
him  that  he  might  give  them  to  the  churches. 

Possessing  this  multitude  of  manuscripts,  no  two  of 
which  exactly  agree,  how  shall  the  scholar  use  them  to 
secure  the  correct  text?  At  first  thought  it  might 
seem  that  the  best  way  would  be  to  decide  which  manu- 
script is  the  earliest,  and  to  adopt  the  text  it  gives. 
But  that  will  not  do  because  the  earliest  manuscript 
we  possess  is  comparatively  late,  and  may  be  the  last  of 
a  series  of  copies  in  which,  by  carelessness  or  by  deliber- 
ate choice,  numerous  changes  have  been  made  in  the 
text.  A  much  later  manuscript,  if  it  was  copied  care- 
fully from  a  very  early  one,  will  really  be  nearer  the 
original.  Nor  will  it  do  simply  to  count  manuscripts 
and  follow  the  majority,  accepting  a  certain  reading, 
if,  for  example,  out  of  forty  manuscripts  thirty  support 
it  and  ten  are  against  it.  There  may  be  reasons  why 
an  erroneous  reading  is  a  popular  one,  or  why  a  poor 
text  has  been  copied  more  times  than  a  good  one. 
Neither  age  nor  numbers  can  be  taken  as  the  guide 
to  the  correct  text 

Errors  in  manuscripts  are  due  to  one  of  two  causes, 
— either  to  carelessness  in  copying,  or  to  deliberate 
changes  made  by  the  copyist.  These  two  classes  of 
errors  must  be  treated  separately  in  any  discussion 
of  how  to  discover  and  correct  them.    And  while  our 


56     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

subject  is  simply  the  gospels,  whatever  is  said  concern- 
ing them  applies  equally  to  the  other  books  of  the  New 
Testament. 

No  manuscript  is  wholly  free  from  mistakes  made 
by  the  carelessness  of  the  writer.  In  fact,  if  we  had 
the  original  autograph  of  one  of  the  gospels,  we  might 
find  in  it  some  error  caused,  as  we  say,  by  a  slip  of  the 
pen.  The  statement  in  Matt.  23  :  35  that  Zachariah 
was  the  son  of  Barachiah,  instead  of  the  son  of  Jehoiada, 
may  possibly  have  been  such  a  slip.  Copyists  in  old 
times  made  exactly  the  same  blunders  that  copyists  in 
the  present  day  make — omitting,  transposing,  or  re- 
peating words,  changing  spelling,  confounding  one 
word  with  another  and  the  like.  In  the  case  of  the 
gospels  two  other  possible  causes  of  error  in  copying 
existed.  When  the  owner  of  a  manuscript  wished  to 
preserve  some  item  of  interest,  such  as  an  additional 
fact  or  an  interpretation,  he  would  make  a  note  of  it 
next  to  the  text  on  the  margin;  and  a  copyist  might 
suppose  it  was  something  accidentally  omitted,  and  so 
insert  it  in  the  text.  Again,  if  the  copyist  was  more 
familiar  with  one  of  the  other  gospels,  he  might  un- 
consciously put  down  a  passage,  especially  some  say- 
ing of  Jesus,  in  the  form  he  already  knew  rather  than 
in  the  form  given  in  the  manuscript  before  him. 

Errors  arising  from  carelessness  are  usually  not  dif- 
ficult to  correct,  because  they  are  evident.  Inspection 
soon  reveals  whether  a  manujscript  has  been  made  by 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  57 

a  blundering  copyist;  and  if  it  has,  its  value  is  cor- 
respondingly diminished.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
mere  process  of  copying  has  not  increased  errors  in 
the  text  to  the  extent  that  might  be  expected.  If  it  had, 
the  manuscripts  of  the  fourteenth  century  would  be 
widely  different  from  those  of  the  fourth,  and  indeed 
from  one  another;  whereas  the  reverse  is  the  case. 
Even  a  student  who  knows  no  Greek  can  perceive  this 
when  he  takes  the  King  James  version,  which  was 
based  on  a  text  made  by  Erasmus  from  a  few  late  man- 
uscripts, and  compares  it  with  the  revised  version, 
whose  Greek  text  was  constructed  mainly  from  that  of 
the  great  uncials.  The  difference  between  the  two  is- 
not  so  very  much,  and  is  due  far  more  to  other  causes 
— which  we  shall  next  consider — than  to  copyists' 
blunders. 

The  other  class  of  errors  arises  from  changes  in  the 
text  made  deliberately,  and  is  a  far  more  serious  mat- 
ter, which  must  be  considered  at  some  length. 

In  the  first  century  doubtless  many  copies  of  the 
gospels  were  made.  And,  as  we  have  noted  when  dis- 
cussing the  formation  of  the  canon,  there  was  no 
thought  that  the  books  were  sacred,  or  that  they  were 
vitally  necessary  for  the  church:  there  was  simply  the 
recognition  that  they  were  helpful  in  a  Christian  life  as 
supplying  the  place  of  the  oral  story  originally  told 
by  eye-witnesses.  Accordingly  the  single  aim  of  a 
copyist  was  to  reproduce  the  original  manuscript;  the 


58     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

only  changes  he  might  make  would  be  unintentional 
ones;  and,  barring  mistakes  and  omissions,  these 
copies  would  give  the  original  text.  If  we  can  dis- 
cover any  of  them,  or  any  exact  reproduction  of  them 
in  later  centuries,  we  may  feel  that  we  are  in  possession 
of  substantially,  the  identical  words  of  the  evangelists. 

The  second  century  brought  a  change.  The  eye- 
witnesses were  gone;  and  the  gospels,  though  not  yet 
deemed  sacred  writings,  were  recognized  as  of  greater 
importance.  There  was  a  natural  wish  to  make  them 
as  full  and  accurate  as  possible.  The  oral  tradition 
had  not  yet  wholly  disappeared,  for  men  were  still 
living  who  at  first-hand  or  second-hand  had  received 
it  from  the  apostles;  and  while  that  tradition  was  prac- 
tically the  same  as  the  written  story,  there  were  dif- 
ferences of  various  sorts.  A  Christian  making  a  copy 
of  a  gospel  would  incorporate  in  its  text  such  changes 
or  additions  drawn  from  the  oral  tradition  as  seemed 
to  him  worth  preserving.  Thus  it  came  about  that  the 
text  of  this  period  lacked  uniformity.  It  was  treated 
with  a  freedom  such  as  neither  the  earlier  nor  any  later 
period  encouraged.  The  differences  between  different 
manuscripts  were  not  great  or  important,  but  they  were 
numerous.  Additions  or  omissions,  explanatory 
clauses,  interpretations,  and  the  like  were  considered 
justifiable. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  second  century,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  church  awakened  to  the  fact  that  the  gospels 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  59 

and  other  New  Testament  writings  were  as  sacred  as 
the  Old  Testament.  This  put  an  end  to  the  free  man- 
ner of  copying  them,  but  gave  rise  to  another  kind  of 
deliberate  alteration.  The  evangelists  were  men  of 
limited  education,  and  their  writings  bore  traces  of  this 
fact.  So  long  as  the  readers  also  were  without  special 
literary  training,  this  made  no  difference.  .  But  now 
Christianity  claimed  many  scholars,  and  was  assailed 
by  others.  If  the  gospels  were  to  be  set  forth  as 
sacred  books,  it  was  important  that  literary  blemishes 
be  removed  from  them.  Reverence  might  check  any 
change  in  their  contents,  but  it  did  not  go  so  far  as  to 
forbid  improvements  in  style  and  diction.  To  sub- 
stitute a  classical  word  for  a  colloquial  one,  to  mend 
faults  in  grammar,  to  smooth  away  the  roughnesses 
that  offended  educated  readers,  seemed  no  more  a 
tampering  with  the  sacred  text  than  to  translate  it  from 
Greek  into  Latin  or  Syriac.  Indeed,  what  was  such 
improvement  but  a  translation  from  the  language  of 
the  ignorant  into  the  language  of  scholars?  Only  a 
scholar,  however,  would  feel  the  need  of  such  a  revision, 
or  venture  to  undertake  it.  And  there  is  no  indication 
that  it  was  ever  done  extensively. 

A  much  more  general  need  was  created  by  the  fact 
that  manuscripts  differed  from  one  another.  Before 
the  gospels  were  canonized,  this  was  felt  to  be  no  ob- 
jection,— perhaps,  indeed,  an  advantage;  but  now  that 
their  words  were  used  as  final  authority,  it  was  impor- 


60     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

tant  to  have  one  definite  accepted  form  of  those  words. 
For  example,  in  John  7  :  8  the  words  of  Jesus  prob- 
ably were  "I  go  not  up  unto  this  feast*';  nevertheless, 
the  account  shows  that  he  did  go  up  later  on.  Some 
copyist,  noting  this  inconsistency,  removed  it,  and  gave 
what  he  thought  was  Jesus'  real  meaning,  by  transform- 
ing "  not*'  into  "  not  yet"  through  a  simple  change  in  a 
single  Greek  word.  As  a  result  there  now  were  some 
manuscripts  reading  "  I  go  not  up,"  and  others,  "  I  go 
not  up  yet."  Which  of  the  two  readings  was  correct? 
There  was  need  of  an  authoritative  text.  Such  need 
would  be  felt  in  the  third  century,  and  apparently  at- 
tempts were  made  to  supply  it;  but  not  until  the  fourth 
century,  when  Christianity  had  become  the  state  re- 
ligion, was  the  church  in  a  condition  to  adopt  and  em- 
phasize such  a  text 

If  we  were  constructing  a  final,  authoritative  text 
to-day,  our  one  aim  would  be  to  reproduce  the  exact 
words  of  the  evangelists.  But  this  did  not  seem  so  im- 
portant to  the  men  of  that  age.  What  they  wanted  was 
a  text  containing  all  the  matter  found  in  the  various 
manuscripts,  and  avoiding  any  perplexing  disagree- 
ments and  diflficulties,  and  suited  in  style  and  diction 
to  attract  readers.  To  frame  such  a  text  was  not  the 
work  of  one  man  or  of  one  generation;  but  by  the  mid- 
dle of  the  fourth  century  it  was  framed  and  came  to  be 
generally  adopted.  This  was  the  last  stage  in  the  his- 
tory of  text  development.     Thenceforth  the  work  of 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  61 

copyists  was  simply  to  reproduce  the  manuscript  that 
lay  before  them.  And  manuscripts  down  to  the  age 
of  printing  are  fairly  faithful  copies — usually  of  the 
text  last  described. 

In  the  preceding  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  text 
so  much  has  been  said  about  deliberate  changes  that  a 
word  of  reassurance  may  be  profitable.  In  whatever 
way  copyists  altered  the  text,  there  is  little  indication 
that  they  did  it  in  order  to  establish  new  doctrines  or  to 
give  a  different  picture  of  Christ.  Such  a  change  as 
that  in  John  7 :  8  might  be  ascribed  to  a  desire  to  de- 
fend the  truthfulness  of  Jesus;  and  there  are  a  few 
similar  ones ;  but  the  ablest  critics  agree  that  they  can 
find  "  no  signs  of  deliberate  falsification  of  the  text  for 
dogmatic  purposes"  (Westcott  and  Hort,  N.  T.  in 
Greek,  2  :  282).  We  can  see  this  for  ourselves  by 
comparing  the  Authorized  Version  with  the  Revised 
Version,  which  is  a  translation  of  an  earlier  and  better 
text.  We  discover  little  changes  in  every  chapter  and 
almost  every  verse;  but  the  picture  of  Christ  and  the 
teachings  he  gave  are  the  same  in  both.  The  early 
church  may  have  foolishly  thought  it  could  improve 
the  form  of  the  gospels;  but  it  recognized  the  truth 
of  their  message  too  plainly  to  attempt  any  change  or 
improvement  in  that. 

Having  thus  seen  how  the  changes  in  the  manuscripts 
originated,  we  are  prepared  to  understand  how  critics 
go  at  the  task  of  w^orking  back  through  the  multitude 


62     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  manuscripts  to  the  original  text  The  first  step  is 
to  divide  the  manuscripts  into  groups  according  to 
their  origin  and  character  as  described  above.  West- 
cott  and  Hort  were  two  English  scholars  who  led  the 
way  in  this.  One  group  is  made  up  of  manuscripts 
reproducing  the  text  adopted  finally  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. This  is  called  the  Syrian  group  because  its  text 
seems  to  have  originated  in  Syria,  or  the  Antiochian 
group  because  Antioch  was,  perhaps,  the  special  Syrian 
city  where  it  originated.  The  Codex  Alexandrinus 
would,  so  far  as  the  gospels  are  concerned,  be  put 
mainly  in  this  group,  and  so — to  a  less  degree — would 
the  Codex  Ephraemi. 

Of  the  writers  who  prepared  this  Syrian  or  Anti- 
ochian texty  Westcott  and  Hort  say  (id.,  134):  "They 
were  evidently  anxious  to  remove  all  stumbling  blocks 
out  of  the  way  of  the  ordinary  reader,  so  far  as  this 
could  be  done  without  recourse  to  violent  measures. 
They  were  apparently  equally  desirous  that  he  should 
have  the  benefit  of  instructive  matter  contained  in  all 
existing  texts,  provided  it  did  not  confuse  the  context  or 
introduce  seeming  contradictions."  They  so  wrought 
at  the  text  that  "  it  presents  the  New  Testament  in  a 
form  smooth  and  attractive,  but  appreciably  impover- 
ished in  sense  and  force,  more  fitted  for  cursory  peru- 
sal or  recitation  than  for  repeated  and  diligent  study." 
Gregory  (Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  501) 
bluntly  says  of  it:  "This  text  is  the  worst  text  in  exist- 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  63 

ence."  Our  own  interest  in  it  is  great,  since  the  King 
James  Version  reproduces  it.  It  was  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  text,  rather  than  any  special  faults  of  the  few 
and  late  manuscripts  used  by  Erasmus,  who  prepared 
the  printed  Greek  text  which  the  King  James  transla- 
tors followed,  that  made  a  Revised  Version  necessary. 

The  second  group  is  called  the  Alexandrian  because 
its  text  possibly  originated  in  Alexandria  where  at 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century  the  finest  Christian 
scholarship  was  to  be  found.  This  presents  the  purely 
literary  revisions  of  the  manuscripts.  In  this  text  "  the 
changes  made  have  usually  more  to  do  with  language 
than  with  matter,  and  are  marked  by  an  effort  after 
correctness  of  phrase.  They  are  evidently  the  work 
of  careful  and  leisurely  hands,  and  not  seldom  display 
a  delicate  philological  tact  which  unavoidably  lends 
them  at  first  a  deceptive  appearance  of  originality" 
(Westcott  and  Hort,  id.y  131).  The  group  is  small  and 
of  minor  importance;  in  fact,  some  scholars  would  not 
recognize  it  as  a  separate  group. 

The  third  group  is  called  the  Western,  though  the 
name  is  somewhat  misleading,  since  its  origin  was  no 
more  in  the  West  than  in  the  East.  Its  text  is  that 
free  rendering  of  the  gospels  which  seems  to  have  been 
usual  everywhere  in  the  second  century.  The  most 
famous  manuscript  of  this  group  is  the  Codex  Bezse, 
which  illustrates  the  characteristics  of  the  group. 
When  Beza  presented  it  to  the  University  of  Cam- 


64     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

bridge,  he  asked  that  it  be  preserved  but  not  pubHshed, 
because  it  contained  many  variations  from  the  text 
then  accepted  as  accurate,  which  was  the  S3Tian  one. 
Most  of  these  variations  are  unimportant,  but  some  are 
very  interesting.  After  Luke  6  :  4  there  is  the  follow- 
ing incident  concerning  Jesus:  "On  the  same  day  he 
saw  a  certain  man  working  on  the  Sabbath;  and  he 
said  to  him,  Man,  if  indeed  thou  knowest  what  thou 
doest,  thou  art  blessed;  but  if  thou  knowest  not,  thou 
art  accursed  and  a  transgressor  of  the  Law."  There 
is  little  reason  to  question  the  genuineness  of  this  say- 
ing of  Jesus;  in  a  striking  way  it  expresses  his  attitude 
toward  the  Sabbath,  which  was  also  the  attitude  of 
St.  Paul  (Rom.  14  :  5/).  In  Luke  23  :  53  it  adds 
to  the  account  of  how  Joseph  laid  the  body  of  Jesus  in 
the  tomb:  "And  when  he  was  laid  there  he  put  against 
the  tomb  a  stone  which  twenty  men  could  scarcely 
roll."  Matthew  says  the  stone  was  great;  but  this 
description  of  it  has  a  true  Homeric  flavor.  To  Jesus' 
words  about  the  greatness  of  service  we  have  this  ad- 
dition in  Matt.  20  :  28.  "  But  seek  ye  to  increase  from 
little,  and  from  greater  to  be  less,"  which  seems  a  genu- 
ine saying  (c/.  James  1:9).  Besides  these  and  other 
additions  there  are  also  omissions.  Examples  of  them 
can  be  seen  by  taking  the  Revised  Version,  and  noting  its 
marginal  statement,  "  Some  ancient  authorities  omit," 
concerning  Luke  22  :  19-20,  and  various  passages  in 
Luke  24.     All  these  are  omitted  in  the  Codex  Bezse. 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  65 

If  the  Codex  Bezse  stood  alone,  it  could  be  disre- 
garded— as  Beza  thought  it  should  be;  but  though 
there  are  few  existing  manuscripts  resembling  it/ 
there  is  abundant  proof  that  it  represents  a  form  of 
text  widely  prevalent  in  the  second  century — a  form 
characterized  by  additions  and  paraphrases  in  which 
no  two  manuscripts  exactly  agree.  How  valuable  is 
this  text  ?  That  is  a  question  which  critics  to-day  are 
busily  discussing.  It  cannot  yet  be  answered;  but  the 
general  tendency  is  to  attach  much  more  importance 
to  the  Western  text  than  formerly.  For  the  life  of 
Christ  it  does  not  seem — at  least,  so  far  as  we  now 
have  it — to  furnish  special  aid;  but  when  we  study 
the  Book  of  Acts  it  is — as  Ramsay  shows  in  his  Life 
of  Paul — full  of  suggestive  hints. 

One  more  group  of  manuscripts  remains,  and  is  most 
important  of  all.  Westcott  and  Hort  call  it  the  Neu- 
tral Group  because  in  it  we  seem  to  have  a  text  more 
free  from  deliberate  changes  than  in  the  rest;  in  other 
words,  its  manuscripts  seem  to  have  been  copied 
directly  or  in  direct  descent  from  the  faithful  manu- 
scripts of  the  first  century.  The  great  representatives 
of  this  group  are  the  two  fine  uncials,  B  and  t<.  These 
two  uncials,  especially  B,  were  used  by  Westcott  and 

'  A  fine  uncial  manuscript  of  the  Four  Gospels,  recently  dis- 
covered and  now  owned  by  Mr.  Freer  of  Detroit,  promises  to  be 
an  important  addition  to  the  Western  group.  Scholars  who  have 
examined  it  declare  that  in  age  and  value  it  is  the  equal  of  Co- 
dex Bezse.    Its  text  will  soon  be  published. 


66     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Hort  as  chief  authorities  when  preparing  their  edition 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament;  and  much  importance 
was  attached  to  them  by  the  scholars  who  gave  us  the 
Revised  Version. 

These,  then,  are  the  four  groups.  Their  character- 
istics are  briefly  indicated  by  the  names  Gregory  has 
suggested  for  them,  viz.,  the  Oflficial  Text,  the  Polished 
Text,  the  Rewrought  Text,  and  the  Original  Text. 
The  task  of  determining  in  which  group  a  particular 
manuscript  should  be  placed  is  not  always  an  easy  one, 
for  no  manuscript  has  a  text  belonging  altogether  to  one 
group.  A  manuscript  is  like  a  man  whose  blood  may 
be  comparatively  pure,  or  may  be  mingled  with  that  of 
one  or  more  alien  races  up  to  a  point  where  his  nation- 
ality is  not  readily  discerned.  When,  however,  a  manu- 
script has  been  assigned  to  its  proper  group,  we  have 
thereby  gained  a  most  valuable  aid  in  determining  its 
general  worth  and  the  importance  of  its  special  varia- 
tions. Its  text  will  display  the  characteristics  of  the 
group,  and  must  be  valued  accordingly.  For  exam- 
ple, a  characteristic  of  the  Western  group  is  additions: 
if,  therefore,  we  find  in  Western  manuscripts  an  addi- 
tion found  nowhere  else,  w^e  set  this  down  as  probably 
not  belonging  to  the  original  text  of  the  evangelists. 

The  work  of  the  textual  critic  is  by  no  means  finished 
when  he  has  classified  and  valued  his  manuscripts,  and 
has  done  his  best  to  correct  errors  evidently  caused  by 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  67 

careless  copying  or  deliberate  change.  There  still  re- 
main passages  in  which  manuscripts  of  equally  good 
authority  do  not  agree;  and  he  must  decide  what  read- 
ing to  accept.  In  doing  this  the  rule  he  follows  is  one 
adopted  by  all  textual  critics,  no  matter  in  what  field 
of  literature  they  work,  viz.,  "That  reading  is  prob- 
ably genuine  from  which  the  origin  and  diffusion  of  the 
others  may  be  most  readily  explained."  In  accord- 
ance with  this  rule  a  diflScult  reading  is  usually  pre- 
ferred to  an  easy  one,  since  a  copyist  would  be  more 
likely  to  simplify  an  obscure  passage  than  to  do  the 
reverse.  For  example,  in  Matt.  6  :  1,  "righteousness" 
is  probably  the  correct  reading,  though  "alms"  is  sim- 
pler. Also  a  shorter  reading  is  preferred  to  a  longer 
one,  since  the  tendency  is  to  enlarge  rather  than  to  con- 
dense. For  this  reason,  in  Matt.  6  :  4,  6,  18,  the  word 
"openly"  is  to  be  omitted:  we  can  understand  why 
it  should  be  added  but  not  why  it  should  be  omitted 
by  a  copyist.  A  second  rule  is :  "  The  text  should  never 
be  constructed  by  pure  conjecture;  some  respectable 
manuscript  must  contain  the  reading  that  is  to  be 
adopted."  This  rule  is  peculiar  to  New  Testament 
criticism,  and  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment differs  from  all  other  ancient  books  in  the  vast 
number  of  its  manuscripts  still  extant.  Of  most  Greek 
and  Latin  classics  there  are  only  a  few  manuscripts, 
sometimes  only  one.  Of  the  Old  Testament  there  are 
many  Hebrew  manuscripts,  but  none  of  them  is  early. 


68     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  they  all  reproduce  but  one  form  of  the  text — a 
form  fixed  by  the  rabbis  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. In  both  cases,  therefore,  the  critic  is  obliged 
to  depend  largely  upon  conjecture,  if  he  would  push 
back  from  the  text  before  him  to  the  original.  Though 
this  makes  his  task  more  simple,  the  results  are  not 
satisfactory:  concerning  many  passages  he  has  to  con- 
fess that  the  text  is  undoubtedly  wrong,  but  that  there 
is  no  possibility  of  correcting  it.  The  New  Testament 
critic  is  in  a  much  more  advantageous  position.  It  is 
true  that  he  is  confronted  with  a  multiplicity  of  read- 
ings which  might  at  first  sight  make  him  despair  of  ever 
determining  the  correct  text;  but  the  very  cause  of 
despair  is  also  the  assurance  of  success.  "WTiile  every 
manuscript  adds  to  the  number  of  variations,  it  is  also 
a  fresh  witness  to  the  original  text.  And  from  the 
testimony  of  such  a  multitude  of  witnesses  the  facts 
he  is  seeking  can  nearly  always  be  ascertained.  Some- 
where among  the  manuscripts  the  original  reading 
is  almost  certainly  retained. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS 
(continued) 

If  the  importance  of  ascertaining  the  original  text  of 
the  gospels  were  less  great,  the  testimony  of  the  manu- 
scripts would  be  suflBcient.  Indeed,  in  the  case  of  other 
ancient  books,  no  one  would  think  of  seeking  further 
evidence.  But  because  the  gospels  are  far  more  im- 
portant than  other  books,  we  seek  and  welcome  testi- 
mony from  every  possible  witness. 

II.     The  Versions 

The  second  source  of  knowledge  is  the  versions. 
These  are  translations  of  the  gospels  made  as  Chris- 
tianity spread  among  peoples  who  knew  little  or  no 
Greek,  and  wished  to  read  the  gospels  in  their  own 
language.  They  are  of  various  dates;  but  for  textual 
criticism  only  those  are  valuable  that  were  made  be- 
fore our  earlier  Greek  manuscripts.  A  later  version 
might  simply  follow  a  text  we  already  have  in  the  man- 
uscripts; but  an  earlier  version  must  have  been  made 
from  a  manuscript  earlier  than  any  we  now  possess, 
and  may  throw  light  upon  the  text  of  that  earlier 

69 


70     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OP  CHRIST 

manuscript.  For  example,  when  we  are  trying  to 
determine  what  was  the  original  text  of  Luke  2  :  14, 
if  we  find  in  a  version  made  in  the  third  century  the 
reading,  "And  on  earth  peace  among  men  in  whom 
he  is  well  pleased,"  we  infer  that  the  translator  found 
this  reading  in  the  manuscript  he  used,  and  are  cor- 
respondingly disposed  to  believe  that  it  was  the  orig- 
inal reading. 

Of  course,  a  version  is  in  manuscript  form,  and  the 
existing  copies  are  much  later  than  the  time  when  the 
version  was  made.  There  may  be  errors  of  copyists, 
and  there  may  be  deliberate  changes  to  make  the  text 
agree  with  that  of  some  Greek  manuscript  which  a 
copyist  knew.  We  have  also  to  reckon  with  the  prob- 
lem of  how  correct  the  translation  was.  In  our  Eng- 
lish Old  Testament  the  changes  in  the  Revised  Version 
arise  mainly  from  the  fact  that  the  King  James  trans- 
lators were  not  as  familiar  with  Hebrew  as  are  modern 
scholars,  and  so  made  mistakes  in  their  work.  The 
versions  of  the  gospels  may  in  like  manner  be  faulty. 
Moreover,  when  we  are  seeking  to  secure  the  exact 
words  of  the  Greek  text,  a  version  is  but  an  imperfect 
help  because  evidently  the  only  way  to  get  back  to  the 
Greek  from  the  version  is  by  retranslation  of  it  into 
Greek;  and  there  are  many  possibilities  of  change  in 
words  and  order  when  so  doing.  If  the  best  of  Greek 
scholars  should  translate  a  chapter  of  our  English 
New  Testament  back  into  Greek,  the  result  would 


THE  TEXT  OF  TPIE  GOSPELS  71 

not  be  the  exact  text  which  was  before  the  transla- 
tors when  they  made  that  English  version.  Despite 
all  these  diflBculties,  "the  value  of  versions  is  still 
considerable;  and  in  the  matter  of  determining  the 
authenticity  of  whole  clauses  or  sentences  inserted 
or  omitted  by  Greek  manuscripts,  it  is  sometimes 
very  great"  (Mitchell,  "Critical  Handbook,"  114). 

In  the  work  of  carrying  Christianity  throughout  the 
Roman  Empire  the  apostles  and  early  missionaries 
needed  no  other  language  than  Greek,  so  long  as  they 
kept  to  the  great  highways  of  commerce  and  civiliza- 
tion. Along  the  western  part  of  the  Mediterranean, 
on  both  the  northern  and  southern  shores,  the  native 
language  was  Latin;  at  the  eastern  end  it  was  Aramaic; 
in  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  it  was  Egyptian  or  Coptic; 
and  in  each  petty  region  there  was  also  a  local  dialect 
peculiar  to  that  region.  But  the  great  language  of 
intercommunication,  read  and  spoken  by  educated 
men  all  around  the  Mediterranean,  was  Greek.  In 
this  language  a  merchant  of  Corinth  would  write  to 
his  correspondent  in  Antioch;  and  a  strolling  teacher 
from  Alexandria  would  lecture  to  his  classes  in  Rome. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  gospel  story,  first  in  its  oral 
form  and  later  in  its  written  form,  was  put  into  Greek. 

The  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is  evidently  not 
the  same  as  that  of  the  classics  or  of  contemporaneous 
books  modelled  after  the  classics;  and  the  cause  of  the 
difference  has  been  a  subject  of  much  debate  among 


72     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

scholars.  Formerly  it  was  supposed  that  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  was  a  special  dialect  arising  from  the 
influence  of  the  Septuagint,  or  from  the  fact  that  its 
writers  were  men  whose  native  tongue  was  Aramaic. 
But  recently  an  increased  knowledge  of  the  Greek  in 
common  use  during  the  first  century  has  shown  that 
New  Testament  Greek  is  practically  the  ordinary 
Greek  of  that  day.  The  evangelists  and  apostles  wrote 
as  they  preached,  in  the  language  familiar  to  every  one 
who  used  Greek  at  that  time;  and,  although  it  some- 
times seemed  novel,  this  was  mainly  because  they  had 
a  new  message  to  proclaim,  and  the  language  must  be 
shaped  to  express  it. 

Despite  the  advantage  of  having  the  gospels  in 
Greek,  the  need  of  having  them  in  other  languages 
would  soon  be  felt.  The  majority  of  Christians  were 
of  lowly  position,  and  could  read  or  understand  no 
other  than  their  native  tongue.  Until  the  Gospels 
were  translated  into  that  tongue,  they  could  become 
acquainted  with  them  only  at  second  hand.  It  might 
be  too  much  to  ask  for  a  translation  into  a  local  dialect; 
but  very  soon  demand  would  be  made  for  translations 
into  Latin  and  Aramaic  and  Coptic.  Just  when  the 
demand  was  made  in  each  case  and  how  it  was  met,  we 
do  not  know.  Undoubtedly  it  was  made  as  early  as 
the  second  century;  and  probably,  since  the  New 
Testament  books  had  not  yet  been  formed  into  one 
collection,  the  translations  were  of  separate  books  in 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  73 

different  places  and  at  different  times.  A  very  brief 
account  of  what  we  know  about  these  versions  is 
enough  to  show  their  bearing  upon  the  problems  of 
textual  criticism. 

In  the  Latin  language  the  most  famous  version, 
which  after  various  revisions  became  the  authorized 
text  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  still  holds  that 
place  to-day,  is  the  Vulgate— a  name  given  to  it  in  later 
days  because  then  it  was  the  version  in  common  use. 
It  was  made  by  the  great  scholar,  Jerome,  who  com- 
pleted that  part  of  it  which  contains  the  gospels  about 
A.  D.  383.  Long  before  that  time,  however,  the  gos- 
pels had  been  translated  into  Latin;  and  one  reason 
why  Jerome  was  asked  to  undertake  his  version  was 
because  the  text  in  different  manuscripts  was  not  the 
same.  There  are  still  existing,  mostly  as  fragments, 
more  than  forty  manuscripts  giving  us  these  earlier 
texts — one  of  which  is  the  Latin  portion  of  Codex  D — 
and  we  can  see  how  much  they  differ.  Scholars  are 
not  yet  agreed  as  to  whether  all  these  manuscripts  are 
based  upon  one  original  version,  and  the  differences 
arose  through  errors  and  alterations  by  copyists;  or 
whether  there  were  several  versions  differing  from  one 
another  originally.  And  in  case  the  theory  of  one 
version  be  adopted,  it  is  disputed  where  that  version 
was  made— in  Northern  Africa,  in  Italy,  or  elsewhere. 
The  name  Old  Latin  or  Itala  has  been  given  to  the 
earlier  version  or  versions  by  way  of  distinction  from 


74     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  Vulgate.  The  text  of  this  Old  Latin  is  of  the  type 
already  described  as  the  Western,  and  represented  by 
Codex  D.  In  fact  it  was  the  prevalence  of  this  type 
of  text  in  early  Latin  manuscripts  and  in  quotations  by 
Latin  Fathers,  that  led  scholars  to  call  it  the  Western, 
because  they  supposed  it  to  be  peculiar  to  Latin-speak- 
ing lands.  A  fuller  knowledge  has  shown  that  it  pre- 
vailed generally  in  the  second  and  third  centuries. 

In  the  Aramaic  language,  which  was  spoken  through- 
out the  great  land  of  Syria,  there  were  many  distinct 
dialects,  among  them  that  of  Palestine;  but  the  one  in 
use  at  Edessa  was  the  most  literary,  and  is  usually 
meant  when  we  speak  of  the  Syriac.  The  chief  Syriac 
version  is  called  the  Peshitta,  i.  e.^  the  "  simple,"  and 
holds  a  place  in  the  Syrian  language  similar  to  that 
which  the  Vulgate  holds  in  the  Latin.  It  used  to  be 
extolled  as  '*  the  Queen  of  Versions,"  and  tradition  de- 
clared that  it  was  made  by  the  evangelist  Mark.  Its 
supposed  antiquity  and  the  fact  that  its  text  was  of 
the  Syrian  type,  were  arguments  used  in  proof  that  the 
Syrian  or  Antiochian  text,  which  our  Authorized  Ver- 
sion follows,  is  the  original  text.  To-day  it  is  generally 
agreed  that  the  Peshitta  is  not  much,  if  at  all,  earlier, 
than  the  fifth  century,  and  that,  like  the  Vulgate,  it  is 
a  revision  of  earlier  versions.  Only  two  manuscripts 
of  these  earlier  versions  have  been  discovered,  viz., 
the  Curetonian  Syriac,  so  called  from  Dr.  Cureton  who 
discovered  and  edited  it  some  fifty  years  ago,  and  the 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  75 

Lewis  Syriac  or  Sinaitic  Syriac,  a  palimpsest  discovered 
in  1892  by  Mrs.  Lewis  and  Mrs.  Gibson  on  Mt.  Sinai 
in  the  same  convent  where  Tischendorf  discovered 
Codex  i<.  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  earlier  of  the  two 
versions;  but  their  relation  to  one  another  and  to  the 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian  is  a  vexed  problem. 

The  text  of  these  earlier  Syriac  versions  is  Western. 
In  the  Lewis  manuscript  certain  readings  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Matthew  have  attracted  attention  and  been 
much  quoted  in  recent  discussions  about  the  virgin 
birth  of  Christ.  The  readings  are:  "  Joseph,  to  whom 
was  espoused  the  virgin  Mary,  begat  Jesus  who  is 
called  the  Christ"  (verse  16),  "She  shall  bear  thee  a 
son"  (verse  21)," She  bare  him  a  son, and  he  called  His 
name  Jesus"  (verse  25).  These  readings  would  tend 
to  support  the  theory  that  the  original  text  of  Matthew 
represented  Joseph  as  the  father  of  Jesus;  yet  in  the 
same  manuscript  we  find  unchanged  the  other  state- 
ments of  this  chapter  about  the  supernatural  con- 
ception of  Jesus.  How  shall  we  explain  it?  The 
translator  or  some  later  copyist  may  have  deliberately 
altered  the  text,  in  which  case  the  question  arises.  Were 
his  alterations  in  the  direction  of  orthodoxy  or  the 
reverse  ? — Did  he  seek  to  make  the  birth  of  Christ  more 
divine  or  more  human  ?  But  the  theory  of  deliberate 
alteration  fails  to  explain  why  the  changes  were  not 
more  thorough-going.  Why  should  evident  contra- 
dictions be  left?  Possibly  the  writer  did  not  consider 
them  to  be  contradictions,  in  which  case  the  statement 


76     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  Joseph's  fatherhood  would  be,  like  those  in  Luke 
2  :  48  and  Matt.  13  :  55,  an  ordinary  way  of  speaking, 
which  could  not  deceive  the  reader  because  the  divine 
fatherhood  was  so  clearly  stated. 

The  Egyptian  language  (also  known  as  the  Coptic, 
a  corruption  of  the  word  Egyptian)  has  several  dialects, 
with  versions  in  each  of  them.  The  age  and  origin  of 
these  versions  and  their  relation  to  one  another  are 
problems  still  unsolved.  The  most  important  version 
is  the  Bohairic,  which  seems  to  be  connected  in  origin 
with  Alexandria.  It  is  unique  among  the  early  ver- 
sions in  that  it  represents  a  Neutral  and  Alexandrian 
text.  This  fact  has  its  evident  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  Neutral  text 

III.     The  Fathers 

The  third  source  of  knowledge  of  the  text  is  the 
Fathers,  or,  more  exactly.  Patristic  Quotations.  There 
is  a  great  body  of  Christian  literature  older  than 
any  existing  New  Testament  manuscript,  and  full  of 
quotations  from  the  New  Testament.  Such  quota- 
tions ought  to  throw  some  light  upon  the  text  which 
each  writer  knew.  Two  difficulties,  however,  have  to 
be  reckoned  with.  First,  the  quotation  may  have  been 
changed  by  a  copyist  to  conform  to  a  text  with  which 
he  was  familiar.  This  is  most  natural,  whether  done 
unintentionally  or  as  a  deliberate  correction  of  a  sup- 
posed mistake.  Second,  the  author  himself  may  not 
have  quoted  the  Scriptures  correctly.     Sometimes  his 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  77 

intention  may  have  been  to  give  nothing  more  than  the 
substance  of  a  Scripture  passage;  and  at  other  times, 
when  he  intended  to  give  the  precise  words,  his  memory 
may  have  been  faulty.  Nothing  is  more  common  to- 
day than  to  hear  misquotations  of  familiar  Scripture 
passages  even  by  well-educated  Christians.  But  while 
the  testimony  of  Patristic  Quotations  has  to  be  taken 
with  discrimination,  it  is  of  much  value  in  determin- 
ing both  the  date  and  the  locality  of  various  texts. 
"  For  instance,  if  we  find  a  certain  well-defined  type  of 
text  in  the  Old  Latin  manuscripts  and  also  in  the  quo- 
tations of  certain  African  Fathers  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  we  are  obviously  justified  in  saying  that 
this  form  of  Latin  version  was  used  in  Africa  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries.  Whereas,  if  we  had  not 
the  quotations,  we  should  have  very  little  certain 
evidence  either  as  to  date  or  place"  (Lake,  Text 
of  New  Testament,  48). 

There  is  no  need  of  entering  upon  a  consideration 
of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  Enough  to  say  that 
in  general  the  earlier  ones  bear  witness  to  the  use  of  the 
Western  text  everywhere,  except  in  Alexandria  where 
there  is  some  evidence  for  the  Neutral  text.  The  later 
Greek  Fathers  seem  to  have  used  the  Syrian  text,  while 
the  Latin  Fathers  seem  to  have  used  the  Vulgate. 

Having  considered  the  methods  which  critics  adopt 
to  secure  a  correct  text  of  the  gospels,  we  look  with  in- 


78     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

terest  to  see  what  measure  of  success  they  have  gained. 
However,  in  our  emphasis  of  the  subject  we  must  not 
develop  an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  magnitude  of  their 
task.  Westcott  and  Hort  point  out  (and  Gregory 
endorses  their  statement)  that  in  seven-eighths  of  the 
New  Testament  there  are  no  variations  of  text  and  no 
grounds  for  doubt.  The  problems  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  remaining  eighth  are  wholly  unimportant,  aris- 
ing from  changes  in  order,  differences  in  spelling,  and 
the  like.  And  in  the  field,  thus  restricted,  where  the 
textual  critic  must  labor,  the  great  majority  of  varia- 
tions are  comparatively  trivial,  since  they  do  not  change 
the  meaning  of  the  passage.  "The  amount  of  what 
can  be  called  substantial  variations  can  hardly  form 
more  than  a  thousandth  part  of  the  entire  text." 

Concerning  this  debatable  part  of  the  text  the  agree- 
ment among  critics  is  greater  than  might  be  expected. 
If  we  take  Westcott  and  Hort's  text  as  a  standard  for 
comparison,  we  shall  find  a  few  scholars  who  believe 
that  it  departs  too  far  from  the  Syrian  text,  and  many 
who  think  that  it  ought  to  incorporate  more  of  the 
Western  text.  Nevertheless,  the  difference  between  it 
and  the  texts  adopted  by  other  modern  scholars  is 
inconsiderable.  For  working  purposes  it  makes  but 
little  difference  which  one  of  the  recent  texts  is  fol- 
lowed. Moreover,  no  changes  brought  about  in  the 
text  by  critical  study  affect  any  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
New  Testament.     This  is  evident  to  the  English  reader 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  79 

when  he  compares  the  Authorized  Version  with  the 
Revised  Version.  In  spite  of  all  changes  the  two  are 
practically  the  same  book,  giving  the  same  facts,  and 
teaching  the  same  truths  in  the  same  way.  If  we  wish 
to  get  close  to  the  exact  words  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  used,  we  do  well  to  study  the  Revised 
Version, especially  the  American  Revised  Version;  but 
if  we  are  seeking  simply  to  lay  hold  upon  the  facts  and 
doctrines  of  the  New  Testament,  it  makes  little  differ- 
ence which  version  w^e  take.  With  but  few  and  minor 
exceptions  they  are  the  same  in  both. 

In  closing  we  may  notice  briefly  the  chief  changes 
in  the  text  of  the  gospels  adopted  by  the  best  textual 
critics  of  to-day.  They  are  interesting  in  themselves, 
and  they  illustrate  the  processes  of  textual  criticism. 

Mark  16  :  9-20.— While  this  ending  to  Mark's  Gos- 
pel is  found  in  most  of  the  manuscripts,  including  Co- 
dices A,  C,  and  D,  it  is  omitted  in  B  and  ^,  both  of 
which  end  abruptly  with  verse  8,  "For  they  were 
afraid."  In  B  the  copyist  has  left  a  blank  column  after 
this  verse,  thereby  indicating  that  he  knew  of  a  further 
ending,  but  did  not  give  it  because  it  was  not  in  the 
manuscript  he  was  following.  A  very  few  manu- 
scripts have  a  shorter  ending  which,  with  slight  varia- 
tions, is  as  follows:  "And  they  reported  briefly  to  those 
around  Peter  all  the  things  commanded.  And  after 
these  things  Jesus  himself  (appeared  to  them  and)  sent 


80     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

forth  through  them  from  the  East,  and  as  far  as  the 
West  the  holy  and  incorruptible  proclamation  of  eter- 
nal salvation."  But  these  manuscripts  also  add  the 
longer  ending  with  the  note  that  it,  too,  is  found  after 
the  words  "  For  they  were  afraid."  The  later  versions 
all  give  the  longer  ending;  but  the  Lewis  Syriac  ends 
with  verse  8,  two  manuscripts  of  the  Bohairic  Version 
give  the  shorter  ending  in  the  margin,  and  one  Old 
Latin  manuscript  has  only  the  shorter  ending.  There 
is  also  some  testimony  of  the  Fathers  that  doubt  existed 
as  to  the  genuineness  of  verses  9-16,  though  mostly 
they  are  silent  about  the  passage. 

The  internal  evidence,  i.  e.,  the  evidence  from  vo- 
cabulary and  style,  is  not  pronounced,  but  tends  rather 
against  Mark's  authorship.  The  passage  certainly  is 
joined  most  awkwardly  to  what  precedes,  as  if  it 
originally  stood  independent  of  it.  Add  to  this  its  em- 
phasis of  the  necessity  of  baptism,  and  its  description 
of  miracles  as  mere  marvels  (both  of  which  are  charac- 
teristic of  the  thought  of  the  second  century  rather 
than  of  the  apostolic  age),  and  we  have  strong  reasons 
for  rejecting  the  passage  as  not  genuine,  and  for  re- 
fusing to  use  it  as  an  authority  upon  the  events  after 
Christ's  resurrection.  Whether  the  original  ending  of 
Mark  was  destroyed  by  some  accident  or  was  sup- 
pressed by  the  early  church  for  some  reason,  or 
whether  the  book  never  was  finished  or  was  ended 
most  abruptly  at  16  :  8,  we  never  shall  know.     From 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  81 

some  cause  the  book  was  incomplete;  and  the  present 
longer  and  shorter  endings  are  attempts  to  complete  it. 
When  and  by  whom  they  were  made  we  can  only  guess. 
An  Armenian  manuscript  was  found  recently  in  which 
the  longer  ending  is  separated  from  the  preceding 
verses  by  a  space  and  some  flourishes,  and  bears  the 
heading  "  Of  the  presbyter  Ariston."  There  was  an 
Aristion  w^ho  lived  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  from  whom  Papias  says  he  gained  informa- 
tion about  the  Lord  (see  p.  40).  Possibly  he  may 
have  been  the  author  of  the  passage,  though  we  have 
only  this  single  and  late  testimony  to  that  effect.  The 
shorter  ending  seems  to  have  originated  even  later 
than  the  longer  one,  and  we  know  nothing  about  its 
authorship. 

John  7  :  53-8  :  11. — This  story  of  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery  is  precious  to  the  Christian  church,  and 
harmonizes  so  completely  with  the  character  and  work 
of  Jesus  that  there  is  little  question  of  its  truth.  Yet 
textual  criticism  shows  plainly  that  it  was  not  in  the 
original  gospels.  It  is  absent  from  all  the  earliest 
manuscripts  except  D;  and  some  of  those  which  con- 
tain it,  mark  it  with  asterisks  or  obeli  as  suspicious.  It 
wanders  from  place  to  place  like  an  intruder,  being 
found  in  the  margin,  or  after  7  :  36,  or  at  the  end  of 
the  gospel,  or  in  Luke  after  21  :  38.  The  text  varies 
considerably — the  most  curious  reading  being  (8  :  8/) : 
"  He  wrote  upon  the  ground  the  sins  of  each  single  one 


82     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  them,  and  they,  when  they  read  it,  being  convicted 
by  their  conscience  went  out."  It  is  found  in  none  of 
the  early  versions  except  the  Latin,  and  only  some  of 
the  Latin  Fathers  know  it.  The  evidence  is  con- 
clusive against  its  belonging  to  the  original  text.  And 
yet  the  story  is  undoubtedly  a  very  early  one.  Euse- 
bius  (3  :  39  :  16),  describing  the  writings  of  Papias, 
says:  "He  has  likewise  set  forth  another  narrative 
concerning  a  woman  who  was  maliciously  accused  be- 
fore the  Lord  touching  many  sins,  which  is  contained 
in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews."  Probably 
it  should  be  put  among  the  Agrapha  as  a  true  story  of 
Jesus,  which  came  down  at  first  orally  of  in  the  dis- 
carded gospels,  and  finally  was  given  a  place  in  the 
canonical  gospels. 

John  5  :  3-4. — The  angel  troubling  the  waters  of 
the  pool  of  Bethesda  is  given  by  many  authorities; 
but  it  is  omitted  by  A,  B,  C,  D,  and  t<,  and  seems  to  be 
evidently  a  note  of  some  copyist,  which  afterward  crept 
into  the  text.  Without  it  there  is  need  of  explanation 
why  the  crowd  gathered  around  the  pool,  and  why  a 
sick  man  must  be  the  first  to  step  into  the  troubled 
waters  if  he  would  be  healed.  The  note  gave  the 
popular  explanation,  and  is  interesting  for  that  reason. 

Luke  22  :  43-44. — The  evidence  for  and  against 
this  passage,  which  tells  of  the  angelic  ministry  and 
the  bloody  sweat  at  Gethsemane,  is  pretty  equally  di- 
vided.    If  the  passage  was  in  the  original  text,  its 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS  83 

omission  in  some  manuscripts  is  hard  to  explain. 
But  without  it  Luke's  account  is  so  lacking  in  emphasis 
of  Christ's  struggle  and  anguish  that  a  copyist  might 
well  be  led  to  insert  the  passage  to  supply  the  lack. 
Even  so  it  may  possibly  be  trustworthy.  Westcott  and 
Hort  say:  "It  would  be  impossible  to  regard  these 
verses  as  a  product  of  the  inventiveness  of  the  scribes. 
They  can  only  be  a  fragment  from  the  traditions,  writ- 
ten or  oral,  which  were  for  a  time,  at  least,  locally  cur- 
rent beside  the  canonical  gospels,  and  which  doubtless 
included  matter  of  every  degree  of  authenticity  and  in- 
trinsic value." 

Luke  23  :  34a.  Very  much  the  same  may  be  said 
of  this  cry  of  Christ  upon  the  cross  as  of  the  preceding 
passage,  though  the  evidence  in  its  favor  is  more  strong. 
Certainly  no  one  can  question  the  truth  of  the  narrative, 
whether  we  owe  it  to  Luke  or  to  a  later  writer.  And  if 
it  was  preserved  for  us  by  a  later  writer,  then  Westcott 
and  Hort  are  right  when  they  say  of  this  and  of  Luke 
22  :  43-44  that  they  "  may  safely  be  called  the  most 
precious  among  the  remains  of  this  evangelic  tradition 
which  were  rescued  from  oblivion  by  the  scribes  of  the 
second  century." 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

No  one  of  the  canonical  gospels  is  dated  or  bears  the 
name  of  its  author.  The  present  titles  are  late,  and 
the  nearest  approach  to  a  statement  of  authorship  is 
John  21  :  24.  In  this  they  differ  from  the  apocryphal 
gospels,  which  usually  make  prominent  the  name  of  the 
author,  and  often  state  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  book  was  written.  The  difference  is  a  valid  argu- 
ment for  the  genuineness  of  the  canonical  gospels, 
since  a  forger  would  have  taken  special  pains  to  make 
an  early  date  and  apostolic  authorship  unmistakably 
evident. 

Concerning  the  date  of  the  gospels  there  has  been, 
and  still  is,  a  great  deal  of  dispute.  Were  they  written 
in  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles  or,  at  least,  of  their  im- 
mediate disciples,  when  the  facts  they  narrate  were 
fresh  in  mind,  and  many  witnesses  were  still  living  to 
confirm  the  narrative;  or  were  they  written  sometime 
in  the  second  century,  long  after  all  witnesses  were 
dead,  and  when  the  oral  tradition  had  become  dis- 
torted and  unreliable?  This  is  the  problem  we  must 
discuss  in  the  present  chapter.  As  we  take  it  up  we 
shall  do  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  it  never  would  have 

84 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  85 

arisen  if  the  gospels  had  contained  no  account  of  mira- 
cles and  no  claim  of  divinity  for  Jesus.  The  arguments 
for  an  early  date  would  be  accepted  without  question 
were  the  supernatural  left  out  of  the  books.  But  those 
who  deny  that  miracles  ever  happen,  and  refuse  to  see 
in  Jesus  anything  more  than  a  human  teacher,  must 
in  some  way  explain  away  these  portions  of  the  gospel 
narrative;  and  the  easiest  way  to  do  so  is  to  say  that 
the  gospels  themselves  were  written  too  late  to  be 
trustworthy. 

Church  history  has  been  likened  to  a  road  in  which, 
soon  after  leaving  the  starting-point,  we  enter  a  dimly 
lighted  tunnel,  and  have  to  proceed  some  distance  be- 
fore we  emerge  into  the  full  light.  The  tunnel  portion 
is  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  For  the  apos- 
tolic age  we  have  the  writings  in  the  New  Testament, 
w^hich — even  if  some  of  them  are  rejected  as  being  of 
later  date — throw  a  great  deal  of  light  upon  the  his- 
tory of  that  period,  though  not  enough  to  answer  all  the 
questions  we  would  like  to  have  answered.  For  the 
last  half  of  the  second  century  we  have  the  voluminous 
writings  of  the  apologists,  which  set  forth  clearly  the 
condition  of  the  church  in  that  period.  But  for  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century  w^e  have  only  the  scanty 
writings  of  the  apostolic  fathers,  and  possibly  a  few 
of  the  New  Testament  books;  and  from  these  we  can 
gain  little  knowledge  of  how  the  church  was  progress- 
ing during  those  years. 


86     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  apologists  had 
our  gospels,  and  believed  them  to  have  been  written  in 
the  first  century.  But  proof  that  they  really  were  writ- 
ten in  the  first  century,  and  not,  as  sceptics  affirm,  in 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century — that  tunnel  period 
— is  less  overwhelming;  indeed,  it  could  not  be  other- 
wise, the  period  is  so  obscure. 

The  evidence  for  an  early  date  must  be  cumulative : 
there  is  no  single  fact  that  can  be  adduced  as  conclusive, 
but  there  are  numerous  facts  pointing  toward  such  a 
date;  and  when  combined  their  force  is  vastly  greater 
than  when  taken  separately.  These  facts  may  be 
grouped  under  two  heads,  viz.,  external  evidence,  or 
what  is  gathered  from  any  source  other  than  the  gos- 
pels, and  internal  evidence,  or  what  the  gospels  them- 
selves indicate.  Each  group  is  far  too  large  for  us  to 
attempt  even  an  outline  of  its  contents.  All  we  can  do 
is  to  give  a  few  items — enough  to  serve  as  a  sample  of 
the  whole — and  thus  to  indicate  the  way  in  which  the 
proof  is  slowly  built  up,  fact  on  fact,  as  a  mason  builds 
a  wall  by  placing  stone  on  stone. 

I.     External  Evidence 

If  we  could  find  in  the  apostolic  fathers — those 
writers  of  the  first  half  of  the  second  century — some 
mention  of  our  gospels  by  name,  or  even  some  quota- 
tions that  were  unquestionably  from  our  gospels,  this 
would  be  the  best  possible  proof  that  the  books  were 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  87 

then  in  existence  and  in  use  by  the  church.  But  such 
proof  is  lacking.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  gospels 
by  name;  and  though  there  are  statements  that  seem 
like  loose  quotations  from  them,  they  are  not  exact 
enough  to  be  unmistakably  such.  For  example,  in 
I  Clement  46 — written  perhaps  about  A.  D.  97 — is  the 
following  passage:  "Remember  the  words  of  Jesus 
our  Lord,  for  he  said.  Woe  unto  that  man:  good  were 
it  for  him  if  he  had  not  been  born  than  that  he  should 
cause  one  of  my  elect  to  stumble.  It  were  better  for 
him  that  a  millstone  should  be  hanged  about  him,  and 
that  he  should  be  sunk  in  the  sea,  than  that  he  should 
cause  one  of  my  little  ones  to  stumble."  This  reminds 
us  very  strongly  of  Matt.  26  :  24  and  18  :  6,  but  we 
cannot  be  sure  that  Clement  took  it  from  that  gospel. 
He  may  have  used  some  other  gospel  or  collection  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  or  it  may  have  come  down  to  him  by 
oral  tradition.  The  same  uncertainty  as  to  the  use  of 
our  gospels  characterizes  all  the  apostolic  fathers. 
This  is  not  surprising,  if  the  canon  was  not  yet  formed. 
There  was  no  reason  why  they  should  refer  to  the  Four 
Gospels  as  recognized  authorities,  or  quote  their  state- 
ments with  literal  exactness  as  inspired  utterances. 
All  this  was  to  come  later  on. 

Justin  Martyr  may  be  reckoned  as  the  last  of  the 
apostolic  fathers  or  the  first  of  the  apologists.  He 
died  about  A.  D.  166.  He  was  a  voluminous  writer, 
though  but  few  of  his  works  remain.     In  them  he 


88     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

often  quotes  from  what  he  calls  the  "  Memoirs  of  the 
Apostles,"  which,  he  says, "  are  called  gospels."  These 
were  books  in  general  use  by  the  church;  for  he  tells 
us  that  "  on  the  day  called  Sunday  all  who  live  in  cities 
or  in  the  country  gather  together  to  one  place,  and  the 
memoirs  of  the  apostles,  or  the  WTitings  of  the  proph- 
ets are  read,  as  long  as  time  permits;  then  when  the 
reader  has  ceased,  the  president  verbally  instructs," 
etc.  (First  Apology  67).  Were  these  memoirs  our 
gospels  ?  The  evidence  that  they  were  is  strong  (see 
Fisher,  "  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief," 
new  edition  211).  WTiile  Justin,  as  we  have  seen,  tells 
certain  things  about  Jesus  that  are  not  found  in  the 
gospels,  he  never  refers  to  the  memoirs  for  these; 
they  seem  to  have  been  gathered  from  other  sources. 
But  in  general  his  story  of  Christ  is  the  same  as  that 
in  the  gospels;  and  though  his  quotations  are  not  ver- 
bal reproductions  of  the  gospel  words,  they  are  as 
nearly  exact  as  his  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament. 
Tatian,  who  became  a  Christian  in  middle  life,  was 
a  disciple  and  admirer  of  Justin  Martyr.  Somewhere 
about  A.  D.  170  he  compiled  a  life  of  Christ  which  he 
called  the  Diatessaron  (i.  e.,  "by  means  of  four")  be- 
cause it  was  made  by  weaving  together  four  accounts. 
If  not  originally  in  Syriac,  it  was  soon  translated  into 
that  language,  and  became  very  popular  among  the 
Syrian  churches.  In  the  fourth  century  Ephraem 
(from  whom  the  Codex  Ephraemi  was  named)  wrote 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  89 

a  commentary  upon  it.  But  in  the  fifth  century  it  was 
put  under  the  ban  because  it  was  taking  the  place  of 
the  canonical  gospels;  and,  though  it  was  mentioned 
with  more  or  less  favor  down  to  the  fourteenth  century, 
finally  all  traces  of  it  and  of  the  commentary  upon  it 
were  lost.  What  could  the  book  have  been?  Not 
many  years  ago  hostile  critics  were  confidently  declar- 
ing that  it  certainly  was  not  a  compilation  of  the  canon- 
ical gospels;  and  though  one  old  writer  had  stated  that 
it  began  with  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,"  which 
would  indicate  that  Tatian  used  the  Gospel  of  John, 
they  jeered  at  this,  because  they  were  sure  that  the 
Gospel  of  John  was  not  written  until  just  about  the 
time  when  Tatian  was  compiling  the  Diatessaron. 
They  said  that  probably  the  Diatessaron  was  only  a 
brief  and  imperfect  life  of  Christ  compiled  from  some 
of  the  apocryphal  gospels;  and  as  for  Ephraem's  com- 
mentary, they  pointed  out  reasons  for  believing  that  it 
was  not  upon  the  Diatessaron  at  all  but  upon  another 
book.     It  is  instructive  to  mark  their  discomfiture. 

In  the  suburbs  of  Venice  was,  and  still  is,  an  old 
Armenian  convent  whose  monks  were  scholars.  They 
had  a  library  of  manuscripts  and  a  printing  press;  and 
in  A.  D.  1836  they  printed  one  of  their  manuscripts — 
the  works  of  Ephraem  the  Syrian  translated  into 
Armenian.  In  the  book  was  the  long-lost  commentary 
on  the  Diatessaron.  But  no  one  seemed  to  notice  this 
fact,  probably  because  the  book  was  in  Armenian  and 


90     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

had  no  table  of  contents.  Then  forty  years  later  they 
published  the  book  in  a  Latin  translation;  and  now 
one  of  our  American  scholars — Ezra  Abbot — called  at- 
tention to  the  commentary.  Immediately  it  excited 
much  interest;  and  Zahn  undertook  to  reconstruct  the 
Diatessaron  itself  from  the  quotations  in  the  commen- 
tary. He  did  a  fine  piece  of  work;  but  something  still 
better  was  in  store.  The  publication  of  Zahn's  work 
stirred  up  the  librarian  of  the  Vatican  to  examine 
his  manuscripts;  and  he  found  to  his  delight  that  he 
had  a  copy  of  the  Diatessaron  itself,  not  indeed  in  the 
Greek  or  Syriac,  but  in  an  Arabic  translation.  He  set 
to  work  to  prepare  this  for  publication,  and  while 
doing  so  learned  from  the  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Coptic 
Church,  who  paid  him  a  visit,  that  there  was  a  similar 
manuscript  owned  by  an  Egyptian  scholar.  This  sec- 
ond copy  was  secured  for  the  Vatican;  and  in  A.  D. 
1888  the  Arabic  text  was  published,  and  has  since  been 
translated  into  English.  Now  that  we  have  the  long- 
lost  Diatessaron,  what  does  it  prove  to  be  ?  A  life  of 
Christ,  compiled  from  the  canonical  gospels,  and  from 
no  other  source,  opening  with  "  In  the  beginning  was 
the  Word,"  and  containing  the  greater  part  of  the  first 
three  gospels  and  nearly  the  whole  of  John.  In  other 
words,  it  is  exactly  the  book  that  certain  critics  declared 
positively  it  could  not  be! 

What  conclusion  should  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that 
Tatian  used  the  canonical  gospels  and  no  others  for 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  91 

his  Diatessaron  ?  Evidently  this,  that  in  his  day  these 
gospels  were  generally  known  and  accepted  as 
authoritative  by  the  church;  otherwise  he  would  not 
have  selected  them  in  preference  to  all  others;  and  his 
book  w^ould  not  have  been  so  popular.  But  for  the 
gospels  to  gain  such  recognition  requires  time;  and 
it  is  not  easy  to  suppose  that  they  had  been  written  only 
a  few  decades  earlier.  Moreover,  as  we  said,  Tatian 
was  a  pupil  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  he  must  have  de- 
rived his  idea  of  the  value  of  the  gospels  from  Justin 
Martyr.  This  confirms  our  belief  that  when  Justin 
speaks  of  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles  that  were  read 
everywhere  in  the  churches,  he  means  the  canonical 
gospels.  And  it  is  equally  hard  to  believe  that  if  they 
were  WTitten  during  Justin's  lifetime,  he  would  have 
been  of  the  opinion,  as  he  was,  that  they  "  were  drawn 
up  by  Christ's  apostles  and  those  who  followed  them" 
(Dialogue  103).  As  his  lifetime  goes  back  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century,  the  argument  is  strong 
that  the  books  were  written  in  the  apostolic  age. 

Irenseus,  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the  apologists, 
wrote,  sometime  before  A.  D.  190,  a  great  volume  in 
five  books  entitled  "Against  Heresies.'*  In  this  he 
says: 

"Matthew  issued  a  written  gospel  among  the  He- 
brews in  their  own  dialect,  while  Peter  and  Paul  were 
preaching  at  Rome  and  laying  the  foundations  of  the 
church.     After  their  departure  [i.  e.,  death]  Mark,  the 


92     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  did  also  hand  down 
to  us  in  writing  what  had  been  preached  by  Peter. 
Luke,  also,  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded  in  a  book 
the  gospel  preached  by  him.  Afterward,  John,  the 
disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  had  leaned  upon  his 
breast,  did  himself  publish  a  gospel  while  he  abode  at 
Ephesus  in  Asia"  (Book  3,  chap.  I). 

All  scholars  agree  that  by  these  four  books  are  meant 
our  Four  Gospels;  and  Irenseus  argues,  in  a  way  that 
seems  to  us  fanciful,  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the  gos- 
pels can  be  more  or  less  than  four  in  number.  But 
where  did  Irenseus  gain  his  information  ?  Some  of  it 
came  from  Polycarp,  who  died  as  a  martyr  in  A.  D.  155. 
Before  he  was  put  to  death,  he  was  told  that  his  life 
would  be  spared  if  he  would  revile  Christ;  and  he 
replied:  "Eighty  and  six  years  have  I  served  him,  and 
he  has  never  done  me  a  wrong;  how  then  can  I  speak 
evil  of  my  king  who  saved  me  ?"  If  by  eighty  and  six 
years  Polycarp  meant  the  whole  of  his  life,  he  was  born 
in  A.  D.  69;  if  he  meant  the  time  from  his  conversion, 
which  is  more  likely,  he  was  born  still  earlier.  Poly- 
carp lived  in  Smyrna  and  was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle 
John,  who  died,  it  is  generally  agreed,  about  A.  D.  100, 
when  Polycarp  was  at  least  thirty  years  old.  Irenseus, 
when  a  boy,  met  Polycarp;  and  this  is  what  he  says 
concerning  him  and  his  teaching: 

"I  could  even  describe  the  place  where  the  blessed 
Polycarp  sat  as  he  discoursed,  and  his  going  out  and 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  93 

coming  in,  and  his  manner  of  life,  and  his  personal 
appearance,  and  his  discourses  to  the  people,  and  the 
accounts  he  gave  of  his  intercourse  with  John  and  the 
others  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  how  he  remembered 
their  words.  Whatever  he  had  heard  from  them  about 
the  Lord,  about  his  miracles  and  his  teaching,  having 
received  them  from  eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  hfe, 
all  this  Polycarp  related  in  harmony  with  the  scriptures. 
These  things,  through  the  mercy  of  God  which  was 
upon  me,  I  then  listened  to  attentively,  noting  them 
down,  not  on  paper,  but  in  my  heart;  and  continually, 
through  God's  grace,  I  recall  them  accurately  "  (Eu- 
sebius  5  :  20). 

Polycarp,  therefore,  stands  as  a  connecting  link  be- 
tween Irenseus  and  the  apostolic  age.  What  he  learned 
as  a  disciple  from  the  apostle  John,  he  passed  on  to  his 
own  eager  boy  disciple,  Irenseus.  To  set  aside  the 
statement  of  Irenseus  about  the  authorship  of  the  gos- 
pels and  their  consequent  date,  involves  the  rejection 
of  testimony  as  direct  and  weighty  as  any  that  could 
be  imagined.  Moreover,  we  must  not  speak  of  Poly- 
carp as  if  he  were  the  only  link  between  the  apostolic 
witnesses  and  later  generations:  he  is  simply  one  of  a 
great  number  just  as  important,  though  their  names 
are  unknown. 

These  are  but  samples  of  the  external  evidence  for 
the  early  date  of  the  gospels.  A  full  treatment  of  the 
subject  would  involve  a  careful  examination  of  all  the 


94     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

writings  preserved  from  the  second  century,  an  esti- 
mate of  the  historical  value  of  each,  and  a  due  consider- 
ation of  every  statement  they  contain  which  in  any  way 
seems  to  bear  upon  the  origin  of  the  gospels.  Like 
many  of  the  topics  we  are  studying,  it  would  require  a 
volume  to  itself.  Enough  for  our  purpose  if  we  gain 
an  idea  of  the  way  in  which  scholars  pursue  the  in- 
vestigation. 

II.     Internal  Evidence 

By  internal  evidence  is  meant  whatever  indications 
of  the  time  when  they  were  written  are  found  in  the  gos- 
pels themselves — in  other  words,  what  "  water-marks 
of  age  "  they  bear.  It  is  by  no  means  easy — so  literary 
criticism  has  repeatedly  shown — to  compose  a  docu- 
ment professedly  of  an  earlier  age,  and  hide  all  traces 
of  its  true  date.  Even  the  most  careful  and  learned 
writer  will  make  some  slip  that  reveals  the  forgery. 
Especially  difficult,  as  we  shall  see,  would  it  have  been 
in  the  second  century  to  forge  a  document  of  the  first 
century;  and  there  is  no  probability  that  any  of  the 
Christians  between  A.  D.  100  and  150  possessed  the 
knowledge  and  literary  skill  to  meet  the  difficulties. 
Of  course,  in  an  uncritical  age  a  very  clumsy  forgery 
might  pass  unquestioned;  but  no  books  have  ever  been 
subjected  to  such  searching  examination  as  have  the 
gospels  in  recent  years.  Friends  and  foes  have  gone 
over  them  minutely,  scrutinizing  every  line,  seeking  to 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  95 

determine  whether  they  really  are  what  the  church  has 
always  supposed;  and  it  would  be  indeed  marvellous 
if  they  were  late  forgeries  and  remained  still  unexposed. 

The  internal  evidence  that  they  were  written  in  the 
first  century  is  two-fold: 

(1)  Their  freedom  from  errors  in  historical  facts. 

The  revolt  against  Rome  which  broke  out  in  A.  D. 
66  and  was  crushed  in  A.  D.  70,  wrought  a  great  trans- 
formation in  Palestine.  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  the 
temple  worship  w^as  henceforth  impossible,  the  San- 
hedrin  was  dissolved,  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees  dis- 
appeared, the  character  of  the  Roman  rule  changed, 
and  customs  and  manners  were  greatly  altered.  For 
a  man  of  the  second  century  to  write  a  life  of  Jesus,  in 
which  all  the  details  of  his  environment  should  agree 
accurately  with  a  period  so  unlike  that  of  the  writer, 
would  be  a  task  involving  much  historical  research. 
Present  interest  has  led  scholars  to  undertake  such  re- 
search; and  every  detail  concerning  Palestinian  life  in 
the  time  of  Jesus  that  can  be  found  anywhere  has  been 
carefully  collected,  so  that  now  we  know  that  period 
better  than  any  writer  since  the  apostolic  age  possibly 
could.  And  the  result  of  the  research  has  been  to  con- 
firm the  accuracy  of  the  gospels.  The  statement  by 
Luke  concerning  the  first  census  under  Quirinius  (Luke 
2  :  2-3)  remains  still  a  matter  of  sharp  discussion, 
and  its  truth  or  error  is  not  yet  established;  but  Luke's 
trustworthiness  as  an  historian,  shown  not  only  in  his 


96     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

gospel,  but  especially  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  was  never 
more  clearly  recognized  than  to-day.  In  no  other  state- 
ment concerning  the  times  of  Jesus  do  we  find  it  easy 
to  maintain  that  the  evangelists  were  in  error.  They 
give  us  a  large  mass  of  facts,  and  some  of  them  very 
minute  facts,  about  Judea  and  Galilee,  the  temple  and 
its  worship,  the  synagogue,  the  Sanhedrin,  the  different 
sects,  the  Messianic  expectations,  and  other  matters 
pertaining  to  political,  social,  and  religious  life  in  the 
time  of  Jesus.  There  is  every  opportunity  for  them  to 
make  a  slip  in  their  statements;  but  they  never  do. 
The  inference,  then,  is  fair  either  that  they  lived  in  the 
times  about  which  they  write,  or  else  that  they  gained 
their  story  from  faithful  reporters  who  themselves 
lived  in  those  times. 

(2)  Their  freedom  from  anachronisms  in  theological 
thought. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  is  the  seed  of  all  later  Christian 
doctrine;  but  the  development  of  doctrine  was  so 
rapid  in  the  apostohc  age  that  sometimes  it  is  difficult 
to  trace  the  connection  between  the  theological  thought 
of  even  the  New  Testament  episdes  and  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  More  than  one  scholar  has  boldly  main- 
tained that  it  was  Paul  and  not  Jesus  who  was  the  real 
founder  of  Christian  theology;  and  some  have  gone 
still  further  and  asserted  that  Paul  and  his  compan- 
ions misunderstood  and  perverted  the  simple  doctrines 
of  Jesus.     Evidently,  then,  it  would  be  difficult  for  a 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  97 

writer  whose  whole  training  had  been  in  the  later  theo- 
logical atmosphere  to  avoid  reproducing  the  thought 
familiar  to  himself  and  his  associates,  when  he  un- 
dertook to  compose  a  life  of  Christ.  Yet  the  gospels 
are  remarkably  free  from  such  anachronisms.  A  few 
examples  will  make  this  evident. 

(a)  The  use  of  terms. 

In  the  gospels  the  word  Christ  is  never  a  proper 
name;  it  is  always  a  title,  "the  Christ,"  i.  e.,  the  Mes- 
siah. But  even  Paul  began  to  use  it  as  a  proper  name, 
and  soon  that  use  was  as  common  as  it  is  to-day. 

The  Kingdom  of  God  or  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 
was  a  term  that  the  apostles  rarely  used,  because  of  the 
danger  that  it  would  be  misunderstood  by  political 
authorities  (cf.  Acts  17  :  7);  but  the  gospels  represent 
Jesus  as  using  it  repeatedly. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  church  is  a  term  constantly 
found  in  the  epistles;  but  it  is  found  only  twice  in  the 
gospels  (Matt.  16  :  18  and  18  :  17),  and  its  presence 
in  these  two  passages  is  by  some  thought  a  later  inter- 
polation. 

The  Son  of  Man  is  a  title  which  was  seldom  used 
in  later  days,  probably  because  it  seemed  to  emphasize 
the  human  side  of  Jesus;  but  in  the  gospels  it  is  Jesus' 
favorite  title  for  himself. 

(6)  The  attitude  toward  miracles. 

To  the  apostles,  and  still  more  to  those  of  later  days, 
the  miracles  of  Jesus  seemed  the  greatest  proof  of  his 


98     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

divinity;  and  they  were  accustomed  to  point  them  out 
and  emphasize  them.  But  the  gospels  represent 
Jesus  as  taking  a  totally  different  attitude  toward 
them.  He  refuses  to  perform  them  simply  as  a  proof 
of  his  divinity  (John  6  :  30);  he  enjoins  silence  con- 
cerning them  (Mark  5  :  43) ;  he  warns  his  disciples 
against  overvaluing  them  (Luke  10  :  20);  and  he 
seems  to  regard  them  as  sometimes  a  hindrance  rather 
than  a  help  in  his  work.  Such  an  attitude  would  be 
almost  beyond  the  power  of  a  later  disciple  to  imagine. 

(c)  The  emphasis  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus. 

The  worship  of  Jesus  led  to  a  constant  emphasis  of  his 
divinity,  and  a  reluctance  to  admit  that  he  in  any  way 
shared  human  limitations  and  weakness;  but  we  find 
little  of  this  in  the  gospels.  "  The  strongest  argument 
against  the  view  that  the  gospels  are  a  product  of  the 
second  century  lies  in  the  fact  that  no  writer  of  that 
period  would  have  ventured  to  represent  Jesus  in  so 
thoroughly  a  human  way  as  the  evangelists  represent 
him  in  the  gospels.  In  these  documents  he  is  seen 
tempted  as  we  are,  subject  to  all  the  infirmities  of  the 
flesh;  not  laying  claim  to  omniscience,  since  he  frankly 
says  he  knows  not  the  day  or  the  hour  of  his  return; 
nor  yet  to  omnipotence,  since  he  affirms  that  to  sit  on 
his  right  hand  and  on  his  left  is  not  his  to  give.  Nay, 
startling  as  it  sounds  to  dogmatic  orthodoxy,  he  de- 
clines even  the  title  of  'good,'  which  is  incidentally 
addressed  to  him — not,  of  course,  that  any  one  could 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  99 

convince  him  of  sin,  still  less  that  he  was  conscious  of 
it  himself,  but  because  he  was  so  thoroughly  aware 
of  his  humanity  and  of  the  divine  nature  that  stood 
over  against  it,  that  he  could  not  allow  for  himself 
an  appellation  which  is  only  appropriate  to  God. — It 
would  have  been  impossible  for  him  in  any  way  to  ex- 
press more  emphatically  his  true  humanity"  (Hor- 
ton,  "Teaching  of  Jesus,"  55). 

(d)  The  lack  of  reverence  for  the  apostles. 

In  the  second  century  the  apostles  were  set  forth  as 
models  of  wisdom  and  saintliness;  all  their  human 
weaknesses  and  sins  were  ignored  as  being  impossible 
for  the  wondrous  founders  of  the  church.  The  first 
trace  of  this  process  of  idealizing  can  be  found  in 
Matthew  and  Luke.  There  is  evident  reluctance  on 
their  part  to  put  down  facts  to  the  discredit  of  the 
apostles,  and  they  sometimes  offer  excuses  for  apostolic 
conduct  when  such  facts  have  to  be  put  down.  This 
will  be  pointed  out  more  fully  in  a  later  chapter.  But 
in  all  the  four  gospels,  we  find  the  apostles  represented 
as  far  indeed  from  ideal  saints.  Peter  denies  his  mas- 
ter with  curses;  James  and  John  wish  to  call  down 
fire  on  a  village  that  will  not  receive  them;  all  are  slow 
to  grasp  Christ's  teachings,  jealous  of  each  other,  lack- 
ing in  faith  and  courage.  They  are  very  human  men, 
with  plenty  of  very  human  faults.  There  is  no  indica- 
tion of  the  second  century  attitude  toward  them  in 
the  story  of  the  gospels. 


100    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

(e)  Statements  that  seem  contradicted  by  later  his- 
tory. 

For  example,  in  the  missionary  instructions  to  the 
twelve  (Matt.  10  :  5-23),  there  are  directions  as  to 
where  and  how  they  shall  go,  and  what  they  shall  take 
with  them,  that  do  not  seem  at  all  to  agree  with  later 
apostolic  missionary  work.  And  again,  in  the  proph- 
ecy about  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  there  is  the 
declaration  that  Jesus  will  return  soon  after  that  event, 
and  in  the  lifetime  of  the  present  generation  (Matt. 
24  :  29,  34).  Such  statements  are  puzzles  requiring 
study  and  explanation  to  harmonize  them  with  the 
actual  facts:  if  the  gospels  had  been  written  in  the  sec- 
ond century,  they  would  have  been  altered  or  omitted. 

These  are  but  samples  of  the  great  mass  of  evidence, 
external  and  internal.  Putting  it  all  together,  the  con- 
clusion seems  well  supported  that  the  gospels  were  writ- 
ten in  the  first  century.  Nearly  all  critics  to-day  accept 
this  conclusion.  Probably  the  latest  of  the  four  gos- 
pels was  John;  and  concerning  its  date  there  has  been 
prolonged  discussion.  Fifty  years  ago  Baur  and  others 
were  positive  that  John  was  not  written  before  A.  D. 
170.  But  the  advocates  of  a  late  date  have  been  forced 
to  draw  back  nearer  and  nearer  the  first  century,  until 
now  the  most  strenuous  would  hardly  try  to  defend  a 
date  later  than  110-120  A.  D.,  which  would  be  cer- 
tainly in  the  lifetime  of  John's  immediate  disciples,  and 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  101 

possibly  in  the  lifetime  of  John  himself,  since  tradition 
declares  that  he  was  but  a  lad  when  he  followed  Jesus 
and  that  he  lived  to  extreme  old  age. 

The  desire  is  strong  to  go  still  further  and  fix  an 
exact  date  in  the  first  century  for  each  gospel;  but  this 
is  far  more  difficult.  The  evidence  is  entirely  inter- 
nal, and  comes  from  emphasizing  a  few  minute  details. 
We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  that  there  is  no 
general  agreement  among  scholars.  Perhaps  the 
opinion  of  the  majority  would  be  that  Mark  was  writ- 
ten before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e.,  before  70 
A.  D.,  Matthew  shortly  before  or  shortly  after  that 
event,  Luke  somewhat  later,  and  John  about  the  end  of 
the  century.  But  exact  dates  are  not  of  supreme  im- 
portance. It  is  enough  to  be  assured  that  the  gospels 
were  written  sometime  in  the  first  century.  For  down 
to  the  very  end  of  that  century  there  would  still  be  liv- 
ing some  eye-witnesses  of  Jesus'  ministry,  and  a  great 
multitude  who  had  heard  the  story  of  that  ministry 
from  the  apostles  or  other  eye-witnesses.  And  it  is  im- 
possible to  suppose  that  these  would  receive  and  use 
our  gospels,  unless  the  facts  therein  reported  agreed 
with  the  story  of  Jesus'  life  as  they  had  learned  it  from 
these  other  sources. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

The  word  gospel  is  the  modern  form  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  godspell,  which  is  often  explained  as  meaning 
good-story,  but  more  probably  means  God-story.  It 
is  used  as  a  translation  of  a  Greek  word  (transliter- 
ated into  English  as  evangel)  meaning  good  news  or 
glad  tidings — a  word  which  in  many  of  the  manu- 
scripts is  part  of  the  title  of  each  of  the  first  four  books 
in  the  New  Testament.  Accordingly  we  usually  call 
each  of  those  books  a  gospel.  But  the  word  properly 
denotes  not  a  book,  but  the  message  contained  in  the 
book — the  good  tidings  originally  proclaimed  by  Jesus 
and  published  to  the  world  by  his  disciples.  Some- 
thing of  this  meaning  still  remains  in  the  word  when 
used  as  a  title;  for  instead  of  the  gospel  by  Matthew, 
i.  e.,  the  book  written  by  him,  the  full  title  is  the  Gospel 
According  to  Matthew,  i.  e.,  the  good  tidings  as  Mat- 
thew has  sent  them  forth. 

Whether  each  gospel  originally  had  a  title  is  doubt- 
ful. If  it  had,  we  cannot  know  what  that  title  was; 
for  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  "The  Gospel"  seems 

to  have  been  the  name  for  the  whole  collection,  since 

102 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  103 

the  separate  books  are  headed  simply  "according  to 
Matthew,"  "  according  to  Mark, "  and  so  on,  which 
shows  that  these  headings  were  not  given  until  the  col- 
lection was  formed.  In  any  discussion,  therefore,  of 
the  authorship  of  a  gospel,  we  cannot  use  the  title  as 
conclusive  evidence;  it  merely  indicates  who  was  sup- 
posed to  be  the  author  at  the  time  when  the  title  was 
adopted.  It  may  represent  a  very  early  and  reliable 
tradition;  but  it  must  be  taken  as  nothing  more  than 
the  opinion  of  some  early  scribe. 

If  the  authorship  assigned  by  the  titles  is  correct  the 
first  gospel  and  the  fourth  were  written  by  apostles, 
the  second  by  a  Jewish  Christian,  whose  early  home 
was  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  third  by  a  Gentile  physician 
who  never  met  Jesus,  but  was  a  companion  of  Paul,  and 
must  have  known  intimately  many  who  had  known 
Jesus.  In  this  case  all  four  evangelists  had  abundant 
opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with  the  facts  they 
narrate,  and  every  inducement  to  state  them  correctly; 
and  their  gospels  ought  to  be  first-class  historical  docu- 
ments. It  would  seem,  then,  that  all  we  have  to  do  is 
to  seek  evidence  confirming  or  disproving  the  tradi- 
tional authorship. 

The  matter,  however,  is  not  as  simple  as  it  seems. 
A  comparison  of  the  first  three  gospels  with  one  an- 
other brings  before  us  a  problem  peculiar  and  very  dif- 
ficult; while  a  comparison  of  the  fourth  gospel  with 
the  first  three  discloses  another  problem  quite  different 


104    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

but  equally  difficult.     The  former  problem  will  be 
sufficient  to  occupy  us  in  the  present  chapter. 

The  first  three  gospels  seem  to  have  been  written  by 
three  different  men  at  different  times,  and  for  different 
classes  of  readers.  Each  is  so  brief  that  at  the  utmost 
it  can  give  only  a  few  of  Jesus'  deeds  and  sayings, 
selected  from  a  great  mass  of  apostolic  recollections, 
concerning  w^hich  the  naive  statement  is  made  by  the 
fourth  evangelist,  "  There  are  also  many  other  things 
which  Jesus  did,  the  which  if  they  should  be  written, 
every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  would 
not  contain  the  books  that  should  be  WTitten  "  (John 
21  :  25).  We  naturally  expect,  therefore,  to  find  that 
the  three  gospels  are  made  up  of  different  selections, 
and  have  little  in  common.  The  fact  is  just  the  re- 
verse. For  example,  Mark  has  comparatively  few  of 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  but  gives  various  important 
incidents  in  his  life,  from  the  imprisonment  of  John  the 
Baptist  down  to  the  resurrection.  Now  these  same 
incidents,  often  arranged  in  the  same  order  and  told 
sometimes  in  almost  identical  words,  form  the  main 
part  of  the  narrative  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke.  In- 
deed, the  whole  of  Mark  except  two  miracles  (7  :  31- 
37;  8  :  22-26),  one  short  parable  (4  :  26-29),  and 
various  scattered  verses,  is  to  be  found  in  Matthew  or 
Luke  or  both.  So  great  is  the  similarity  of  the  three 
that  in  modern  discussions  they  are  called  the  synoptic 
gospels,  or  more  briefly  the  synoptics;    by  which  is 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  105 

meant  gospels  giving  a  common  view  of  the  life  of 
Christ,  or  gospels  that  for  profitable  study  should  be 
placed  side  by  side  and  viewed  together;  and  their 
authors  are  called  the  synoptists.  Moreover,  com- 
mon to  Matthew  and  Luke  are  many  sayings  of  Jesus 
not  given  by  Mark;  and  these  sayings  are  even  more 
exactly  identical  than  the  record  of  incidents. 

As  a  result  of  this  remarkable  agreement  we  have  to 
study  the  first  three  gospels  as  if  they  were  to  a  large 
degree  simply  different  forms  of  one  book.  We  ar- 
range their  contents  in  parallel  columns  so  that  they 
can  be  constantly  compared,  and  call  such  an  arrange- 
ment a  harmony  of  the  synoptics.  If  we  add  John, 
and  thus  make  a  harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  the 
peculiarity  of  the  synoptics  becomes  still  more  evident, 
for  John  has  very  little  matter  in  common  with  the 
other  three;  and  parallel  columns  are  usually  impos- 
sible. In  fact,  there  is  nowhere  else  in  biographical 
literature  an  instance  of  three  books  so  similar  and  yet 
distinct.  For,  with  all  their  close  resemblances,  the 
synoptics  are  distinct.  Each  relates  or  omits  certain 
incidents  and  sayings  not  related  or  not  omitted  by  one 
or  both  of  the  other  two;  and  in  a  passage  common  to 
two  or  to  all  three  the  phraseology  may  be  identical  for 
a  little  ways,  and  then  vary  without  any  apparent  rea- 
son. Each  book  has  its  individual  character,  its  own 
way  of  treating  a  topic,  and  its  special  purpose;  there 
is  no  possibility  of  identifying  one  with  another. 


106    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Illustrations  of  all  this  are  not  necessary;  any  har- 
mony of  the  gospels  will  give  them.  Of  course,  if  the 
text  is  in  English  instead  of  Greek,  the  agreements  and 
disagreements  in  phraseology  are  much  concealed;  yet 
some  idea  of  them  can  be  gained,  even  in  English,  by 
studying  such  a  passage  as  the  plucking  of  grain  on  the 
Sabbath  (Matt.  12  : 1-8,  Mark  2  :  23-28,  Luke  6  : 1-5), 
especially  if  the  text  used  is  the  revised  version.  As 
for  the  matter  that  is  common  to  all  three  gospels,  a 
very  convenient  collection  of  it  is  given  by  Lindsay 
as  a  prologue  to  the  New  Testament,  published  in 
"  Everyman's  Library." 

The  problem  which  this  comparison  of  the  synoptics 
forces  upon  the  student  is.  How  did  these  resemblances 
and  differences  arise  ?  What  theory  of  the  origin  and 
interrelation  of  the  first  three  gospels  will  best  explain 
why  they  are  so  remarkably  alike  and  yet  so  evidently 
different?  This  is  the  synoptic  problem  which  has 
confronted  scholars  as  far  back  as  the  days  of  St. 
Augustine,  and  over  which  they  still  are  working. 
Some  of  the  proposed  solutions  of  it  we  must  now  con- 
sider. 

Of  course,  if  we  accept  what  is  called  the  "  dictation 
theory"  of  inspiration,  and  believe  that  the  evangelist 
had  no  part  in  the  composition  of  his  gospel  other  than 
to  write  down  word  for  word  what  the  Holy  Spirit  sug- 
gested, there  is  no  synoptic  problem.  For  some  in- 
scrutable reason  it  was  the  will  of  the  divine  author 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  107 

that  these  three  books  should  thus  agree  and  differ; 
no  further  explanation  is  necessary.  But  the  dictation 
theory  is  held  by  few,  if  any,  thoughtful  men  to-day. 
In  whatever  way  the  Holy  Spirit  aided  the  evangelist 
in  his  work  (and  that  such  aid  was  given  is  evident, 
when  the  canonical  gospels  are  contrasted  with  the 
apocryphal),  it  is  agreed  that  the  human  author  had 
his  own  active  and  intelligent  part  to  perform.  He 
had  to  gather  his  information  as  other  authors  do,  and 
to  use  his  mental  powers  in  sifting  it  and  arranging  it 
and  putting  it  into  words.  And  the  synoptic  problem 
centres  in  the  question.  From  what  source  or  sources 
did  the  synoptists  gain  their  knowledge  of  the  life  of 
Christ,  so  that  they  wrote  precisely  the  books  we  have  ? 
One  theory,  advanced  by  St.  Augustine,  we  may  call 
that  of  mutual  dependence.  When  the  first  evangel- 
ist, whichever  he  was,  had  written  his  gospel,  the  sec- 
ond used  it  as  the  basis  of  his  work,  following  its  order 
when  this  seemed  best,  adding  new  material  or  omit- 
ting what  he  did  not  care  to  repeat,  copying  the  exact 
words  or  changing  them  at  his  pleasure.  Then  the 
third  evangelist  had  one  or  both  of  the  earlier  works 
before  him,  and  used  them  in  the  same  way.  This 
would  seem  to  account  very  simply  and  naturally  for 
the  agreements  and  also  for  the  disagreements.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact  it  does  not;  for  when  we  seek  to  de- 
termine which  gospel  was  first  and  which  was  second 
or  third,  serious  difficulties  arise.     For  example,  Mat- 


108    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE'  OF  CHRIST 

thew  is  much  longer  than  Mark:  then  evidently — ac- 
cording to  this  theory — if  it  was  written  later,  it  is  an 
enlargement  of  Mark:  or  if  it  was  written  earlier,  it  is 
condensed  in  Mark.  But  if  it  is  an  enlargement,  why 
does  it  omit  some  important  portions  of  Mark  ?  Or,  if 
Mark  is  a  condensation,  why  does  Mark  give  some  of 
the  common  facts  in  much  fuller  form  ?  And  in  either 
case,  why  should  the  copying  be  in  one  place  very  exact 
and  in  another  full  of  alterations?  There  may  be  a 
measure  of  truth  in  this  theory  of  mutual  dependence; 
but  it  does  not  fully  solve  the  synoptic  problem.  This 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  scholars  who  adopt  it  cannot 
agree  as  to  the  order  of  writing  of  the  gospels,  or  their 
relation  to  one  another.  Each  of  the  three  gospels  has 
been  given  a  first  or  second  or  third  place  in  time,  and 
each  has  been  supposed  to  be  dependent  upon  one  or 
upon  both  of  the  other  two;  and  yet  none  of  these  ar- 
rangements has  fully  solved  the  problem. 

Another  theory  we  may  call  that  of  common  origin. 
This  supposes  that  all  three  gospels  are  based  upon  a 
gospel  now  lost,  and  derive  from  it  the  matter  they 
have  in  common.  The  lost  gospel  may  have  been  a 
written  one,  for  the  opening  statement  of  Luke, 
"  Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up 
a  narrative  concerning  those  matters  which  have  been 
fulfilled  among  us,"  seems  to  refer  to  written  gospels 
already  in  existence,  though  it  is  barely  possible  that 
the  drawn-up  narratives  were  oral.     Was  this  lost  gos- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  109 

pel  in  Greek,  and  did  our  evangelists  simply  take  ex- 
tracts from  it;  or  was  it  in  Aramaic,  or  even  in  He- 
brew, so  that  our  evangelists  each  had  to  translate  from 
it?  Both  suppositions  have  been  advanced — the 
former  to  explain  the  way  in  which  the  synoptics  agree; 
the  latter,  the  way  in  which  they  disagree.  Evidently 
neither  supposition  is  wholly  satisfactory.  Indeed,  the 
advocates  of  the  theory  are  forced  to  fall  back  upon 
the  suggestion  that  the  original  gospel  appeared  in  suc- 
cessive editions,  and  our  evangelists  made  use  each  of 
a  different  one.  But  if  there  was  a  written  gospel,  the 
source  of  all  three  synoptics,  we  are  puzzled  to  explain 
why  so  important  a  book — used  by  three  evangelists 
as  an  authority — should  have  utterly  disappeared. 
More  probably  the  lost  gospel  was  an  oral  one,  or,  in 
other  words,  the  synoptists  each  made  use  of  a  com- 
mon tradition  concerning  Jesus,  which  the  church  of 
their  day  possessed.  • 

How  this  tradition  or  oral  gospel  came  into  existence 
can  easily  be  imagined.  The  apostles  remained  in 
Jerusalem  for  comparatively  a  long  time  after  the 
Day  of  Pentecost;  and  their  preaching  consisted 
mainly  in  telling  the  story  of  Jesus  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  men  believe  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  The  fre- 
quent repetition  of  this  gospel  story  would  tend  to  give 
it  a  stereotyped  form;  and  the  tenacity  of  Oriental 
memories  would  preserve  that  form  when  the  hearers 
passed  the  story  on  to  others.     Thus  unconsciously 


110    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

before  long  there  would  arise  a  definite  oral  gospel. 
It  would  be  a  story  of  Jesus  dwelling  upon  such  inci- 
dents and  teachings  as  were  specially  suited  for  evan- 
gelistic purposes.  The  deeper  sayings  of  Christ,  such 
as  those  recorded  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  would  have  no 
place  in  it,  because  they  were  not  suited  to  an  audience 
of  unconverted  men.  When  the  Christians  were  scat- 
tered abroad,  after  the  death  of  Stephen,  they  took  the 
oral  gospel  with  them.  And  when  the  synoptists 
undertook  to  write  memoirs  of  Jesus,  they  naturally 
used  the  oral  gospel  as  the  foundation  of  their  gospels, 
adding  such  additional  information  as  they  possessed, 
or  thought  to  be  important,  and  arranging  the  narrative 
according  to  their  individual  plans. 

This  theory  is  certainly  correct  in  its  supposition 
that  the  gospel  originally  must  have  been  passed  along 
in  oral  form,  and  doubtless  was  somewhat  of  the  char- 
acter described.  But  it  does  not  solve  the  synoptic 
problem.  For  example,  this  oral  tradition,  since  it 
originated  in  Jerusalem,  must  originally  have  been  in 
Aramaic:  how,  then,  does  it  happen  that  the  synoptics, 
which  are  all  in  Greek,  often  agree  "  to  the  very  finest 
shades  of  the  Greek  idiom"  ?  Again,  while  the  theory 
fails  to  account  for  the  resemblances,  it  increases  the 
difficulty  of  accounting  for  the  variations;  since,  if  the 
oral  gospel  was  so  stereotyped  that  it  passed  from 
hearer  to  hearer  without  any  change  of  form,  we  can 
hardly  suppose  an  evangelist  would  alter  it  when  writ- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  111 

ing  it  down.  Especially,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  nu- 
merous passages  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  but 
not  found  in  Mark:  were  they  part  of  the  oral  tradi- 
tion; and  if  so,  why  did  Mark  omit  them  ?  Moreover, 
there  are  indications  that  some  written  source  was  used 
by  the  synoptists.  As  an  example  of  this,  note  how 
each  account  of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (Matt. 
9  : 6,  Mark.  2:10,  Luke  5  :  24)  has  the  same  parenthet- 
ical explanation  inserted  in  the  midst  of  Jesus*  words 
in  a  manner  that  is  awkward  even  in  a  written  account, 
and  would  be  almost  unintelligible  in  an  oral  ac- 
count. These  and  other  objections  have  caused  most 
scholars  to  abandon  the  oral  theory,  though  a  few  still 
advocate  it. 

The  theory  most  popular  at  present  is  called  the 
double  source  or  two-document  theory;  and  it  posses- 
ses the  strong  points  of  both  the  preceding  theories.  It 
is  based  upon  a  passage  in  Eusebius  which  gives  us  two 
quotations  from  Papias,  who  wrote  somewhere  between 
A.  D.  130  and  160: 

"Mark,  having  become  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote 
down  accurately,  though  not  indeed  in  order,  whatever 
he  remembered  of  the  things  said  and  done  by  Christ. 
For  he  had  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  accompanied 
him;  but  afterward,  as  I  said,  he  accompanied  Peter, 
who  used  to  suit  his  teachings  to  the  needs  of  his  hear- 
ers without  attempting  to  give  an  orderly  arrangement 
of  the  Lord's  words,  so  that  Mark  cannot  be  blamed 


112    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

for  thus  having  written  down  some  things  as  he  remem- 
bered them.  For  of  one  thing  he  was  careful — to  omit 
nothing  of  what  he  had  heard,  and  to  state  nothing 
falsely.  These  things  are  related  by  Papias  con- 
cerning Mark.  And  about  Matthew  he  says  as 
follows:  Matthew  wrote  [or  compiled]  the  Logia  in 
the  Hebrew  language;  and  each  one  translated  [or 
interpreted]  them  as  he  was  able "  ("  Church  His- 
tory, "  3  :  39). 

The  word  Logia  means  sayings,  and  is  often  used 
for  divine  utterances,  i.  e.,  oracles;  it  may  have 
been  the  term  chosen  for  the  utterances  of  Jesus  as 
suited  to  their  divine  character.  In  the  present  dis- 
cussion it  maybe  left  untranslated  and  used  as  a 
proper  name. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  first  things  to  be 
written  concerning  Jesus  would  be  his  sayings — both 
because  they  are  not  so  easily  remembered  as  his  deeds, 
and  because  it  is  important  to  preserve  their  exact  form. 
Matthew's  early  training  as  a  tax-collector  would  ac- 
custom him  to  make  memoranda :  and  it  is  very  prob- 
able that,  either  when  he  was  with  Jesus  or  afterward, 
he  made  such  a  collection  of  sayings,  and  naturally 
they  would  be  in  Hebrew — i.  e.,  Aramaic,  the  language 
in  which  they  were  spoken.  Whether  this  Logia  of 
Matthew  contained  simply  the  sayings  of  Jesus  (like 
the  papyri  recently  unearthed  in  Egypt),  or  whether 
some  sayings  were  prefaced  by  accounts  of  the  cir- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  113 

cumstances  that  called  them  forth,  is  disputed.  The 
latter  seems  more  likely,  as  often  a  saying  would  lose 
its  force  or  its  meaning  apart  from  the  circumstance. 
So  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  sayings  seem  to  have  been 
arranged  in  groups,  each  related  to  some  practical 
topic  of  Christian  life,  and  intended  for  the  use  of 
Christians  who  wished  to  know  and  follow  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  on  that  topic.  Perhaps  these  groups 
were  circulated  separately,  as  little  manuals  of  Chris- 
tian teaching,  before  they  were  brought  together  in  one 
collection.  In  any  case  the  Logia  was  not  a  gospel,  but 
only  a  collection  of  Christ's  sayings;  it  cannot,  there- 
fore, be  identified  with  our  Gospel  of  Matthew.  How- 
ever, the  fact  that  it  was  written  in  Hebrew  may  ex- 
plain the  early  and  universal  tradition  that  Matthew 
wrote  his  gospel  in  Hebrew;  for  that  gospel  in  its  pres- 
ent Greek  form  bears  little  indication  of  being  a  trans- 
lation from  a  Hebrew  original. 

The  book  which  Papias  describes  as  written  by  Mark 
would  be  a  gospel,  and  practically  a  reproduction  of  the 
oral  gospel.  It  was  the  story  of  Jesus  as  Peter  used  to 
tell  it  for  evangelistic  purposes — such  a  story  as  that 
which  he  told  Cornelius:  indeed,  the  outline  of  Peter's 
story,  given  in  Acts  10  :  37-41,  would  serve  as  an  out- 
line of  Mark's  gospel.  Mark  doubtless  added  to  it 
details  gained  from  other  sources;  in  fact,  the  question 
most  strongly  discussed  at  present  is.  How  far  did 
Mark  reproduce  Peter's  direct  testimony?     Whether 


114    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

this  book  was  our  present  gospel  according  to  Mark, 
as  Eusebius  and  Papias  apparently  believed,  or  was 
an  earlier  work  of  which  our  present  gospel  is  a  revi- 
sion, is  another  question  over  which  scholars  dispute. 
Many  think  that  the  synoptic  problem  is  more  easily 
solved  by  supposing  an  earlier  work — an  Ur-Marcus; 
but  others  are  disposed  to  accept  the  gospel  in  its  pres- 
ent form  as  the  original.  Thus  we  account  for  one  of 
the  three  synoptics,  and  give  Mark  special  value  as 
being  the  earliest  of  all  our  gospels. 

The  theory  next  supposes  that  these  two  documents 
— the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the  Logia  of  Matthew  (the 
latter,  perhaps,  already  translated  into  Greek) — were 
used  as  the  main  sources  of  our  other  two  gospels. 
The  person  who  wrote  the  present  Gospel  of  Matthew 
had  come  into  possession  of  the  two  documents,  and 
had  also  gathered,  from  either  written  or  oral  sources, 
other  important  facts  about  Jesus.  It  was  natural 
that  he  should  bring  them  together  into  one  book.  He 
was  not  trying  to  write  a  biography  of  Jesus;  and  he 
liked  to  arrange  his  material  topically  rather  than 
chronologically.  So  in  his  book  we  find  chapters 
devoted  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  such  as  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  and  the  Parables  by  the  Lake,  and  other 
chapters  devoted  to  the  deeds  of  Jesus,  such  as  the 
group  of  miracles  in  chapters  eight  and  nine.  There 
was  no  feeling  on  his  part  that  the  documents  he  was 
using  were  sacred;   so,  as  he  copied,  he  changed  the 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  115 

order  or  the  wording  to  suit  his  purpose.  Nor  was 
there  the  feeling  that  when  he  used  the  words  of  an- 
other he  must  make  it  evident,  or  else  be  guilty  of 
plagiarism.  In  that  age,  as  we  see  from  other  books, 
the  sin  of  plagiarism  was  not  recognized:  an  author 
felt  at  liberty  to  use  as  much  of  another's  production 
as  he  wished  without  any  acknowledgment.  Who 
the  writer  of  the  First  Gospel  was,  we  never  shall  know. 
Possibly  it  was  Matthew  himself.  More  probably  it 
was  a  later  author;  and  the  name  of  Matthew  was 
given  to  the  gospel  because  it  was  considered  to  be 
simply  an  amplification  of  Matthew's  Logia. 

The  theory  also  assigns  a  similar  origin  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke.  In  early  days,  all  scholars  supposed  that 
the  author  of  this  gospel  was  Paul's  companion,  "  the 
beloved  physician,"  Luke.  This  is  questioned  by 
many  recent  critics,  but  all  agree  that  he  was  the  per- 
son who  wrote  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  that  he  had  more 
of  the  modern,  historian's  spirit  than  any  other  evan- 
gelist. His  preface  states  the  care  with  which  he  col- 
lected his  material;  and  his  book  shows  an  attempt  to 
arrange  it  in  something  of  a  chronological  order.  His 
main  sources,  like  those  of  Matthew,  were  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  and  the  Logia;  but  he  has  drawn  more  from 
other  sources  than  did  the  author  of  Matthew.  He, 
too,  follows  Mark's  order  in  his  general  arrangement 
of  incidents,  but  he  tries  to  put  Jesus'  sayings  in  an 
historical  rather  than  a  topical  setting. 


116    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

This  in  broad  outline  is  the  solution  of  the  synoptic 
problem  most  popular  with  scholars  to-day.  They 
are  by  no  means  agreed  as  to  its  details.  Was  the 
source  we  have  called  the  Logia  really  the  book  men- 
tioned by  Papias,  or  was  it  some  other  collection  of 
Jesus'  words?  There  is  really  nothing  to  connect  it 
with  Papias'  statement  except  that  it  contained  many 
sayings  of  Jesus,  and  Logia  originally  meant  sayings. 
The  recent  tendency  is  to  call  it  simply  the  source 
(Quelle)  document,  and  refer  to  it  as  Q.  Did  Mark 
make  any  use  of  this  source?  Were  there  other 
sources  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke?  Did  Luke 
hav^e  the  Gospel  of  Matthew?  How  far  were  there 
successive  revisions  or  editiouiS  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
as  well  as  of  Mark  ?  Questions  like  these  are  easier 
to  ask  than  to  answer;  they  are  constantly  discussed  in 
the  endeavor  to  account  for  all  the  complex  phenomena 
presented  by  the  synoptics;  but  even  to  state  the  min- 
ute details  involved  in  such  discussions  would  take 
too  much  space,  and  pass  beyond  the  purpose  of  this 
book. 

The  fascination  of  the  synoptic  problem  arises  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  an  attempt  to  get  behind  our  present 
gospels,  and  recover  the  earlier  form  of  the  gospel  story 
out  of  which  they  grew.  For  centuries  we  have  used 
the  synoptics  as  original  sources;  now  we  find  that 
common  sources  lie  behind  them,  and  we  are  eager  to 
ascertain  what  these  contained.     For  every  step  back- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM  117 

ward  brings  us  closer  to  the  original  statements  of  those 
who  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word, 
and  to  the  story  of  Jesus  as  it  used  to  be  told  by  the 
church  in  Jerusalem. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM 

No  book  in  the  Bible,  unless  it  be  Genesis,  has  given 
rise  to  so  much  discussion  and  controversy  as  the 
Gospel  of  John.  The  literature  it  has  called  forth  is 
enormous;  merely  the  titles  of  books  and  pamphlets 
would  make  a  large  volume.  The  main  question,  of 
course,  is.  How  far  can  we  accept  this  gospel  as  trust- 
worthy? A  few  years  ago  critics  seemed  to  be  ap- 
proaching an  agreement  about  the  answer;  but  recent 
writers  are  again  far  apart. 

This  is  not  surprising.  Differences  of  temperament 
cause  the  book  to  make  different  impressions  as  to  its 
value.  For  example.  Dr.  Philip  Schaff  feels  it  to  be 
"the  most  original,  the  most  important,  the  most  in- 
fluential book  in  all  literature";  while  Mr.  John 
Stuart  Mill  contemptuously  dismisses  it — especially  the 
speeches  of  Jesus,  and  in  particular  the  speech  after 
the  Last  Supper — as  "mystical — poor  stuff — matter 
imported  from  Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  Platonists, 
and  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Saviour."  Evidently 
these  two  critics  would  never  agree,  because  the  book 

appeals  to  the  one  and  does  not  to  the  other. 

118 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  119 

Still  more  dividing  are  differences  in  theological 
attitude.  John  sets  forth  the  pre-existence  and  divine 
claims  of  Jesus  far  more  plainly  than  do  the  other  gos- 
pels. It  is  possible  to  accept  the  synoptics  as  in  the 
main  trustworthy,  and  yet  see  in  Jesus  simply  a  human 
teacher — one  remarkable  indeed,  perhaps  unique,  but 
not  divine.  This  is  impossible  with  John:  if  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  trustworthy,  we  must  believe  that 
Jesus  clearly  showed  himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.  If,  therefore,  we  have  already 
come  to  some  decision  about  the  claims  of  Jesus  (and 
no  man  can  live  in  a  Christian  world  without  some 
decision,  conscious  or  unconscious)  we  have  thereby 
taken  a  definite  attitude  toward  the  Gospel  of  John — 
an  attitude  which,  in  spite  of  all  attempts  to  weigh  the 
evidence  honestly  and  without  prejudice,  will  influence 
our  decision  as  to  its  trustworthiness. 

This  almost  inevitable  difference  of  opinion  is  best 
shown  in  a  discussion  of  the  authorship  of  the  gospel. 
What  was  the  relation  of  the  Apostle  John  to  the  book  ? 
The  answer,  as  in  the  question  of  date,  must  be  de- 
termined by  external  and  internal  evidence. 

The  external  evidence  that  the  apostle  was  the 
author  is  strong.  The  earliest  is  at  the  end  of  the 
book  itself:  "This  is  the  disciple  that  beareth  witness 
of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things;  and  we  know 
that  his  witness  is  true"  (21  :  24).  This  verse  im- 
mediately follows  the  story  accounting  for  the  origin  of 


120    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  report  that  Jesus  had  said  John  should  not  die; 
and  it  purports  to  be  a  declaration  by  some  persons 
who  knew  John — possibly  the  elders  of  Ephesus — that 
the  book  is  by  him  and  is  trustworthy.  It  is  like  the 
attestation  clause  to  a  will;  and,  like  such  a  clause,  it 
must  be  either  a  forgery  or  genuine.  If  it  be  a  forgery, 
it  is  put  in  such  a  form  as  to  weaken  its  force,  since  it 
omits  names  entirely.  A  forger  would  have  put  the 
matter  clearly:  "This  book  was  written  by  the  be- 
loved apostle  John,  and  we,  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
bear  witness  to  its  truth."  If  it  is  not  a  forgery,  then 
it  is  very  early  and  strong  evidence  for  John's  author- 
ship. Possibly  it  was  an  endorsement  placed  origi- 
nally on  the  margin  of  the  manuscript,  and  later  trans- 
ferred to  the  text  itself. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century — that  period  where  we  begin  to 
have  clear  light  upon  church  life  and  thought — every- 
body supposed  the  apostle  John  to  be  the  author  of  the 
fourth  gospel,  except  a  few  who  rejected  the  teachings 
of  that  gospel.  The  statement  of  Irenseus,  already 
quoted  (p.  92),  is  a  good  example  of  such  evidence. 
But  hostile  critics  refuse  to  accept  the  external  evi- 
dence or  find  various  ways  of  diminishing  its  force. 
For  example,  in  reply  to  the  argument  from  Ire- 
nseus  they  point  out  that  according  to  Papias  (see 
p.  40)  there  was  a  presbyter  John  as  well  as  an  apostle 
John,  and  argue  that  Irenseus  may  have   meant  the 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  121 

presbyter,  or  at  least  have  confounded  the  apostle 
with  him. 

The  internal  evidence  is  also  strong.  Dr.  Westcott 
in  the  introduction  to  his  commentary  on  John  shows 
from  the  book  itself  that  the  author  must  have  been  (1) 
a  Jew;  (2)  living  in  Palestine  in  the  first  century;  (3) 
an  eye-witness  of  what  he  describes;  (4)  an  apostle;  and 
(5)  no  other  than  the  apostle  John.  It  is  a  fine  piece 
of  critical  work,  in  which  other  scholars  have  followed 
him;  and  the  argument  should  be  studied  as  a  whole 
for  a  due  appreciation  of  its  force.  Nevertheless, 
critics  who  do  not  wish  to  be  convinced  by  it,  are  not 
convinced:  and  a  recent  one  (Jiilicher)  declares  that 
the  one  unassailable  proposition  from  internal  evidence 
concerning  the  fourth  gospel  is  that  its  author  was 
not  the  apostle. 

With  the  same  external  and  internal  evidence  before 
them,  we  see  that  scholars  reach  very  unlike  conclu- 
sions. The  majority,  perhaps,  would  say  that  John 
himself  wrote  or  dictated  the  gospel;  but  others  hold 
that  some  disciple,  before  or  after  John's  death,  wrote 
down  the  story  as  he  had  gathered  it  from  the  apostle, 
or  else  made  use  of  some  narrative  prepared  by  John 
as  the  basis  of  the  present  gospel.  Others  would  ad- 
mit of  no  connection  between  the  apostle  and  the  book, 
and  suppose  that  the  author  was  another  John — whom 
later  thought  confounded  with  the  apostle — or  else 
some  unknown  person  who  tried  to  give  his  work  a 


122    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

semblance  of  apostolic  authorship.  "Possibly  the 
question  may  never  get  beyond  this  unsatisfactory  con- 
dition; possibly  it  may  be  settled  conclusively  by  the 
discovery  of  some  lost  book.  Meanwhile,  pending 
such  happy  discovery,  men  will  continue  to  differ  ac- 
cording to  their  intellectual  and  religious  idiosyn- 
crasies (Bruce,  "Apologetics,"  467). 

After  all,  the  authorship  does  not  determine  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  book  as  fully  as  we  might  at 
first  suppose.  If  a  disciple  of  John  wrote  it,  he  may 
have  given  with  great  accuracy  the  facts  he  learned 
from  John.  And  even  if  the  author  had  nothing  to  do 
with  John  he  may  himself  have  been  a  disciple  of  Jesus, 
as  Papias  says  the  presbyter  John  was,  or  the  sources 
on  which  he  relied  may  have  been  just  as  good  as  John's 
reminiscences.  For,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible 
that  with  John  himself  as  author,  the  book  is  not  trust- 
worthy. He  may  have  idealized  his  Master  to  such  a 
degree  that  his  account  is  really  a  romance;  or  in  his 
old  age  he  may  unconsciously  have  adopted  myths 
and  legends,  then  current  in  the  church,  so  that  his 
testimony  is  little  better  than  that  of  a  later  historian. 
It  is  easier,  of  course,  to  dispute  John's  authorship  than 
his  accuracy;  but  the  real  problem  is  presented  by 
the  book  itself,  and  authorship  is  only  one  step  toward 
solving  it. 

The  problem  presented  by  the  Fourth  Gospel — the 
Johannine  problem — is  precisely  the  opposite  of  that 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  123 

presented  by  the  first  three  gospels — the  synoptic  prob- 
lem. As  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the 
synoptic  problem,  is  Why  are  the  first  three  gospels  so 
remarkably  alike  ?  The  Johannine  problem  is.  Why 
is  the  Fourth  Gospel  so  remarkably  unlike  the  first 
three  ?  Two  biographies  or  two  sketches  of  the  same 
subject  may  properly  be  expected  to  differ:  but  John 
differs  so  greatly  from  the  synoptics  that  we  are  forced 
to  ask,  Have  we,  indeed,  the  same  Christ  in  John  as  in 
the  other  gospels;  and  if  we  have,  how  are  the  dif- 
ferences in  these  accounts  of  him  to  be  explained  ? 

The  differences  must  be  considered  somewhat  fully. 
And  for  convenience  we  may  put  them  in  three  groups, 
viz.,  the  details  of  the  public  ministry,  the  teachings 
of  Christ,  and  his  self-revelation. 

7.  Differences  in  the  Details  of  Chrisfs  Ministry 

(1)  Its  Locality. — According  to  the  synoptics,  Jesus 
remains  in  Galilee  and  the  coasts  until  he  comes  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  die;  according  to  John,  he  is  mainly  in 
Jerusalem  and  Judea,  though  occasionally  he  with- 
draws into  Galilee  or  across  the  Jordan. 

(2)  Its  Beginning. — The  synoptics  all  date  this  from 
the  time  when  the  Baptist  was  cast  into  prison;  but 
John  describes  a  period  of  work  before  the  imprison- 
ment, a  part  of  which  was  occupied  in  doing  very  much 
the  same  as  the  Baptist  was  doing — preaching  and 
baptizing. 


124    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

(3)  Its  Length. — The  synoptics  tell  of  but  one  Pass- 
over (the  final  one)  which  would  indicate  a  ministry 
of  not  more  than  one  year;  but  John  tells  of  three 
Passovers,  and  possibly  of  four,  which  would  indicate 
a  ministry  of  at  least  two  years  and  perhaps  three. 
Three  is  the  popular  view;  but  I  think  two  is  held  by 
the  best  scholars  to-day. 

(4)  Its  Success. — According  to  the  synoptics,  Jesus 
at  first  meets  with  great  success;  multitudes  flock  to 
him;  his  words  are  heard  with  approval;  he  carries 
everything  by  storm;  and  it  is  not  until  later  on  that 
popular  favor  deserts  him,  after  he  has  refused  to  be- 
come the  kind  of  king  the  people  clamor  for.  Then 
he  seems  to  recognize  that  his  work  is  all  in  vain,  and 
begins  to  prepare  his  disciples  for  the  cross  which 
awaits  him.  According  to  John,  he  meets  with  bitter 
opposition  from  the  very  outset,  and  in  his  first  teach- 
ing at  Jerusalem  speaks  of  the  death  which  his  enemies 
will  inflict  upon  him;  and  this  opposition  continues, 
growing  only  more  bitter  till  the  end. 

(5)  Its  Characters. — Many  of  the  leading  characters 
in  John's  story  are  not  mentioned  by  the  synoptics. 
We  may  identify  Nathanael  with  Bartholomew;  but 
nowhere  in  the  first  three  gospels  do  we  hear  of  Nico- 
demus,  or  Lazarus,  or  the  Woman  of  Samaria;  while 
Thomas,  who  is  so  well  known  to  us  from  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  is  only  a  name  in  the  first  three. 

(6)  Seeming    Contradictions.  —  Certain    particular 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  125 

statements  in  John  are  hard  to  reconcile  with  those  in 
the  synoptics.  The  most  noteworthy  of  these  is  that 
concerning  the  day  of  our  Lord's  death.  From  the 
first  three  gospels  we  should  conclude  without  doubt 
that  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  at  the  time  when  the  other 
Jews  did,  and  died  the  following  day;  but  John  seems 
to  state  with  equal  clearness  that  he  died  on  the  day 
when  the  Jews  were  preparing  their  Passover,  at  the 
time  when  the  Paschal  Lamb  was  slain  to  be  eaten 
that  evening,  and,  therefore,  his  Last  Supper  was  on 
the  evening  before  the  Passover. 

II.     Differences  in  the  Teachings  of  Christ 

(1)  In  Form. — (a)  Instead  of  short,  incisive  sayings 
or  groups  of  sayings  loosely  connected,  John  gives 
elaborated  addresses  on  particular  themes,  e.  g.,  the 
Bread  of  Life,  the  Departure  of  Jesus,  and  the  Coming 
of  the  Comforter.  And  instead  of  parables  there  are 
allegories  such  as  the  True  Vine,  the  Good  Shepherd, 
the  Door  of  the  Sheepfold. 

(6)  The  key  words  of  Christ's  teachings  are  unlike 
those  in  the  synoptics,  but  identical  with  those  in  the 
Epistles  of  John;  e.  g.,  light,  darkness,  life,  death, 
witness,  the  world,  to  know  and  to  believe.  Moreover, 
the  style  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  the  epistles  or 
the  prologue  of  the  gospel — a  Hebrew  style  in  which 
the  statements  are  brief,  simply  framed,  and  connected 
with  the  constantly  repeated  copula  "and."     Indeed 


126    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OP  CHRIST 

it  is  not  always  easy  to  tell  where  the  statements  of 
Jesus  end  and  those  of  the  evangelists  begin.  What 
portions  of  the  third  chapter,  for  instance,  should  be 
assigned  to  Jesus  and  what  to  John? 

(2)  In  Subject- Matter. — (a)  Certain  topics  empha- 
sized in  the  synoptics  are  hardly  mentioned  in  John. 
For  example,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  nowhere  found 
except  in  the  talk  with  Nicodemus;  and  instead  of  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  is  usually  the  coming  of  the 
Comforter.  There  is  complete  silence  about  demoni- 
acs, save  as  the  charge  is  made  that  Jesus  has  a  demon. 

(h)  The  mission  of  Christ,  instead  of  being  re- 
stricted, as  in  the  synoptics,  to  the  Jews,  is  a  universal 
and  eternal  one.  He  has  other  sheep  not  of  this  fold: 
he  is  the  light  of  the  world:  he  will  draw  all  men  unto 
him. 

(c)  The  teachings  of  Christ  in  the  synoptics  are 
simple  and  generally  practical;  in  John  they  are 
theological  and  most  profound.  For  this  reason,  John 
even  in  the  early  centuries  was  called  "the  Spiritual 
Gospel,"  and  has  been  likened  to  the  inner  sanctuary 
of  the  temple.  It  presupposes  an  intuitive  perception 
of  the  deepest  religious  truths  when  these  are  pre- 
sented without  explanation  or  comment. 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  127 

III,  Differences  in  the  Self -revelation  of  Christ 

(1)  Progress  in  the  Revelation. — In  the  synoptics 
we  find  a  slow  and  orderly  advance  in  Christ's  unveil- 
ing of  his  mission  and  claims.  He  begins  by  preach- 
ing the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  says  nothing  about  him- 
self as  the  King — the  long-expected  Messiah.  He 
checks  the  demoniacs  when  they  would  proclaim  him 
the  Son  of  God.  He  waits  patiently  for  the  time  when 
there  shall  dawn  upon  his  disciples  a  recognition  of 
w^hat  he  is;  and  he  rejoices  greatly  when  Peter — far 
along  in  the  course  of  the  ministry — pronounces  him 
to  be  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God;  but  even  then  he 
charges  them  to  say  nothing  publicly  about  it.  And 
only  in  the  last  week  of  his  life  does  he  throw  away  all 
reserve,  and  announce  his  divine  claims  to  any  who 
may  listen. 

In  John  there  is  no  such  progress:  all  is  evident  from 
the  outset.  The  Baptist  points  out  Jesus  as  the  Lamb 
of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  (1  :  29). 
His  disciples  at  the  very  outset  hail  him  as  the  Son 
of  God,  the  King  of  Israel  (1  :  49).  To  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  looking  for  the  Messiah,  he  says:  "I  am 
He"  (4  :  26).  And  in  his  public  discourses  from  the 
very  beginning  he  emphasizes  his  divinity.  Even  the 
sacramental  teachings  concerning  eating  his  flesh  and 
drinking  his  blood  are  given  in  the  discourse  on  the 
day  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand;  and  John 


128    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

wholly  omits  any  institution  of  the  sacrament  in  con- 
nection with  the  Last  Supper. 

(2)  The  Means  of  the  Revelation. — In  the  synoptics 
the  miracles  are  primarily  a  manifestation  of  the  sym- 
pathy of  Jesus,  or,  at  the  utmost,  of  his  power  and 
authority.  In  John  they  are  a  revelation  of  his 
divine,  pre-existent  glory  (John  2  :  11).  The  very 
first  one — the  changing  of  water  into  wine  at  Cana — 
causes  his  disciples  to  beheve  on  him.  They  are 
wrought  in  harmony  with  his  eternal  nature — the  blind 
man  is  given  sight  because  he  is  the  Light  of  the 
World  (9  :  5) ;  Lazarus  is  raised  from  the  dead  because 
he  is  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life  (11  :  25).  So,  too, 
his  other  deeds  are  related  to  the  heavenly  world  to 
which  he  belongs;  e.  g.,  he  washes  the  disciples'  feet, 
*'  knowing  that  he  came  forth  from  God  and  returned 
to  God"  (13  :  3). 

(3)  The  Fulness  of  the  Revelation. — In  the  synoptics 
Christ  reveals  himself  as  the  Messiah;  but  whether  this 
means  more  than  that  he  is  the  one  whom  God  has 
specially  chosen  and  anointed  with  his  spirit  to  bring 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  is  debatable.  In  John  no 
ground  is  left  for  such  debate.  He  plainly  proclaims 
himself  as  existing  before  Abraham  (8  :  58),  as  the 
Way,  the  Truth  and  the  Life  (14  :  6),  as  one  with  the 
Father  (10  :  30).  The  Jews  are  ready  to  stone  him  for 
blasphemy  because  he  makes  himself  God  (10  :  33). 
No  clearer,  fuller  revelation  of  his  unique  divine  re- 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  129 

lationship  to  the  Father  could  be  demanded.  The  dis- 
ciple who  comes  to  Jesus  through  accepting  John's 
representation  of  him,  must  say  with  Thomas,  "My 
Lord  and  my  God''  (20  :  28). 

Can  these  many  differences  between  John  and  the 
synoptics  be  explained,  and  the  two  accounts  be  so 
harmonized  that  we  may  accept  both  as  trustworthy  ? 
Able  critics  answer  no;  and  reject  John  as  historically 
worthless.  It  is  well  to  notice,  in  considering  their  de- 
cision, that  most  of  them  are  likewise  dubious  about 
the  trustworthiness  of  the  synoptics,  and  are  unwilling 
to  accept  without  modification  the  picture  of  Christ 
there  presented.  From  this  we  may  infer  that  the 
real  difficulty  with  John  is  not  its  difference  from  the 
synoptics,  but  its  clearer  presentation  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  which  they  refuse  to  recognize  even  in  the 
synoptics.  Equally  able  critics,  however,  accept  and 
defend  John,  finding  the  same  divine  Saviour  of  the 
world  in  it  and  in  the  synoptics.  Their  explanation 
of  the  differences  between  the  two  must  now  be  con- 
sidered. 

Before  we  take  up  the  solution  of  the  Johannine 
problem  offered  by  defenders  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we 
should  notice  that,  perhaps,  the  problem  is  not  quite 
as  difficult  as  some  would  make  it  appear.  The  dif- 
ferences between  John  and  the  synoptics  are  some- 
times   exaggerated.     Though    the    style    of    Christ's 


130    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

words  in  the  synoptics  is  usually  unlike  that  in  John, 
yet  there  are  passages  in  which  it  is  identical;  e.  g., 
"All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  Me  of  My  Father; 
and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son  save  the  Father,  neither 
doth  any  know  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to 
whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him*' :  this  is  from 
Matthew  (11  :  27),  yet  nothing  could  be  more  like 
John.  Concerning  the  difference  in  the  teachings  of 
Christ,  the  opinion  of  Wendt  is  valuable,  not  only 
because  his  book,  "  The  Teaching  of  Jesus, "  is  a  very 
able  one,  but  because  he  approaches  the  subject 
as  a  hostile  critic,  refusing  to  grant  apostolic  author- 
ship for  much  of  the  narrative  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Stalker  summarizes  Wendt's  conclusions  as  follows: 
"St.  John  has  a  peculiar  vocabulary;  but  its  leading 
catchwords  are  simply  equivalents  of  the  leading  catch- 
words of  the  synoptists;  and  the  circle  of  Christ's 
teachings  in  John  when  laid  above  the  circle  found  in 
the  synoptists,  corresponds  with  it  point  by  point,  al- 
though, of  course,  at  some  points  St.  John  is  more  ex- 
pansive and  goes  deeper"  ("Christology  of  Jesus,'* 
252).  In  regard,  also,  to  the  revelation  of  himself 
the  difference  may  be  less  than  it  seems.  The  slow 
development  which  we  trace  in  the  synoptics  is  in  the 
hearers  and  not  in  himself;  for  we  believe  that  Christ 
was  as  fully  aware  of  his  Messianic  nature  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry  as  at  the  close.  And  the 
Gospel  of  John  indicates  just  such  slow  development. 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  131 

Far  on  in  the  second  year  of  his  preaching  the  Jews 
come  to  him  saying,  "  How  long  dost  thou  hold  us  in 
suspense?  If  thou  art  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly" 
(10  :  24;  c/.  7  :  40-41).  Evidently  the  proclamation 
to  them  had  not  been  as  unmistakable  as  we  might 
think. 

Nevertheless,  serious  difficulties  in  the  attempt  to 
harmonize  John  w^ith  the  synoptics  remain  and  cannot 
be  ignored.  Two  facts,  however,  are  helpful  because 
they  throw  light  upon  the  character  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel. The  first  is  that  its  author  was  acquainted  with 
the  synoptic  account,  and  intended  his  work  to  be 
supplementary  to  it.  This  is  what  early  writers  state; 
e.  g.y  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  wrote  about  A.  D. 
200,  says:  "  John,  perceiving  that  what  had  reference 
to  the  body  [i.  e.y  the  external  facts]  was  clearly  set 
forth  in  the  other  gospels,  and  being  urged  by  his  friends 
and  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  composed  a  spiritual  gos- 
pel" (Eusebius,  6  :  14  ).  And  this  is  what  the  book 
itself  indicates  at  the  very  outset,  where  the  early  work 
of  John  the  Baptist  and  his  baptism  of  Jesus,  and  the 
persons  who  form  the  first  band  of  disciples,  are  treated 
as  well-known  to  its  readers.  With  the  exception  of 
the  early  Judean  ministry,  which  the  synoptics  omit, 
there  is  no  attempt  at  a  continuous  narrative:  typical 
scenes  are  given  without  their  connection.  The  sec- 
ond fact  is  that  the  purpose  of  the  book  is  unlike  that  of 
the  synoptics.     This  we  must  consider  more  at  length. 


132    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  synoptics  were  written,  as  we  have  noted, 
mainly  to  preserve  and  spread  the  oral  gospel.  They 
are  not  attempts  at  biography,  but  precious  memora- 
bilia which  practical  experiment  had  found  most  valu- 
able in  making  converts  to  the  Christian  faith  or  in 
fashioning  the  daily  Christian  life.  The  purpose  of 
John  is  plainly  stated  at  the  close  of  the  book  (20  :  30) : 
"  Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the  presence 
of  the  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book;  but 
these  are  written,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have 
life  in  his  name."  Why  there  was  need  to  write  such 
a  book  is  evident.  The  church  at  first  had  no  theory 
concerning  the  way  in  which  the  human  and  the  divine 
were  joined  in  Christ.  It  accepted  him  as  the  Son  of 
God  without  seeking  to  explain  the  nature  of  that  Son- 
ship.  But  before  a  great  while  there  was  forced  upon 
it  the  problem  over  which  men  have  pondered  ever 
since.  In  what  sense  was  Christ  one  with  God — the 
Godman?  And  various  theories  were  propounded 
that,  without  rejecting  him  as  Saviour,  diminished 
either  his  perfect  humanity  or  his  perfect  divinity. 
The  prologue  of  John  (I  :  1-18)  has  reference  to  these, 
and  shows  what  the  book  wishes  to  prove,  viz.y  that 
Jesus  was  God  become  flesh,  dwelling  among  us  with 
the  evident  glory  of  the  Only  Begotten  from,  the  Father, 
and  that  in  him  alone  is  spiritual  life.  The  whole 
book  is  a  sermon  on  this  text.     Its  object  is  to  supple- 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  133 

ment  the  synoptics  by  setting  forth  the  divinity  of  Christ 
more  plainly  than  they  had  done,  and  thus  to  furnish 
an  answer  to  those  within  the  church  itself  who  were 
questioning  whether  Jesus  was,  in  a  full  sense  of  the 
term,  the  Son  of  God.  Indeed,  the  prologue  to  John 
seems  an  appropriate  introduction  rather  to  a  theolog- 
ical discussion  than  to  a  biography. 

When  we  fairly  recognize  the  supplementary  and 
special  character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  its  peculiarities 
cease  to  be  remarkable.  Consider  first  its  difference 
from  the  synoptics  in  the  details  of  the  public  ministry. 
There  is  no  indication  that  the  synoptists  did  not  know 
of  Jesus'  work  in  Judea  at  the  beginning,  and  of  his 
visits  to  Jerusalem  later  on.  Indeed,  such  a  state- 
ment as  his  cry  over  Jerusalem,  "  How  oft  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children"  (Matt.  23  :  37),  would  be  unin- 
telligible if  the  final  Passover  visit  was  the  first  one. 
Nor  is  it  fair  to  infer  from  their  failure  to  mention  any 
Passover  except  the  last  that  they  supposed  the  min- 
istry to  be  limited  to  one  year.  Mark  expressly  states 
that  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  took  place  in  the 
time  of  green  grass — the  time  of  the  Passover;  and 
since  he  tells  of  a  long  ministry  after  that  miracle,  he 
cannot  have  supposed  that  it  was  in  the  springtime  of 
the  last  Passover. 

The  synoptists,  as  we  have  noted,  do  not  give  or  pro- 
fess to  give  a  complete  record  of  Christ's  words  and 
deeds;  nor  do  they  attempt  (though  this  is  not  entirely 


134    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

true  of  Luke)  a  chronological  arrangement  of  their 
narratives.  Why  they  omit  all  mention  of  the  work  in 
Judea  and  Jerusalem,  except  during  Passion  Week 
and  possibly  some  isolated  incidents  such  as  the  visit 
with  Mary  and  Martha  (Luke  10  :  38-42),  we  can  only 
surmise.  But  that  work  was  comparatively  brief;  it 
seemed  a  complete  failure;  and  probably  the  synoptists 
or  their  sources  saw  in  it  nothing  of  special  interest 
and  importance — at  least,  nothing  that  should  be  re- 
lated in  preference  to  other  portions  of  the  ministry. 

The  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  on  the  other  hand, 
saw  in  the  Judean  work  much  that  suited  his  purpose 
exactly.  He  wished  to  set  before  his  readers  the  di- 
vinity of  Jesus;  and,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  there 
was  no  place  where  Jesus  proclaimed  his  divine  nature 
and  mission  so  clearly  and  boldly  as  at  Jerusalem,  "  the 
theological  centre  of  the  nation,"  in  the  great  feasts 
where  representatives  of  the  Jewish  race  were  assem- 
bled from  every  quarter. 

It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  incidents  from  the 
work  in  Judea  should  constitute  the  chief  part  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  And,  this  being  the  case,  it  was  in- 
evitable that  the  story  should  differ  as  to  characters, 
incidents,  and  measure  of  success  from  that  which  the 
synoptists  related.  Any  harmony  of  the  gospels  will 
show  how  the  two  narratives  fit  into  each  other.  A 
discussion  of  special  instances  in  which  they  seem  at 
first  sight  to  be  contradictory  would  take  too  much 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  135 

time.  The  commentaries  on  John  will  suggest  how 
these  can  be  harmonized.  Even  the  most  difficult  of 
all — the  time  of  the  Last  Supper  as  related  to  the  Pass- 
over— is  simply  explained,  if  we  suppose  that  because 
of  the  great  number  of  pilgrims  coming  to  the  Pass- 
over, it  was  allowable — indeed,  would  seem  to  be  neces- 
sary— for  some  to  sacrifice  and  eat  the  Passover  lamb 
in  advance  of  the  regular  time,  and  that  Jesus  was  one 
of  those  who  thus  anticipated  the  regular  day  and  hour 
in  eating  the  Passover  meal. 

In  regard  to  the  differences  in  the  form  of  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ,  I  suppose  we  must  agree  that  the  style 
and  keywords  are  those  of  John  rather  than  of  Jesus. 
And  the  natural  conclusion  is  that  though  John  gives 
us  the  thought  of  Jesus,  he  clothes  it  in  his  own  words. 
In  one  way  that  is  true  of  all  four  gospels.  They  are 
written  in  Greek;  but  Jesus  spoke  in  Aramaic — the 
common  language  of  the  people  of  Palestine;  so  we 
do  not  have  his  original  words  when  we  read  the  Greek 
gospels  any  more  than  we  do  w^hen  we  read  our  Eng- 
lish revised  version;  in  both  cases  we  are  using  a 
translation.  The  cry  on  the  cross,  "Eli,  Eli,  lama 
sabachthani,"  the  command  to  Jairus's  daughter, 
"Tahtha  cumi,"  are  exact  reproductions  of  Christ's 
own  words;  but  such  examples  are  rare.  Moreover, 
in  the  long  discourses  in  which  John's  gospel  abounds, 
we  probably  have  not  simply  a  translation  of  Christ's 
words,  but  a  summary  of  them  without  any  attempt 


136    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

to  reproduce  their  exact  form.  True,  they  are  put  on 
Jesus'  h*ps  in  what  rhetorically  is  called  direct  dis- 
course. But  we  must  remember  that  the  Hebrew 
language  never  developed  indirect  discourse,  and  used 
the  first  person  just  as  much  when  giving  only  the  gen- 
eral meaning  of  a  speaker  as  w^hen  giving  his  precise 
words.  (See  Robertson,  "Early  Religion  of  Israel," 
2  :  176.)  So  it  would  seem  perfectly  proper  to  a 
man  who  was  more  familiar  with  Hebrew  than  with 
Greek,  to  write,  e.  g.y  "  Jesus  said  *  I  am  the  Bread 
of  Life,'"  where  another  writer  would  express  it, 
"Jesus  said  that  he  was  the  Bread  of  Life."  We 
ought  not  to  accuse  John  of  putting  into  Christ's 
mouth  words  that  he  never  spoke,  for  that  is  something 
John  had  no  intention  of  doing.  Nor  ought  we  to  be 
troubled  if  we  have  not  the  precise  words  of  Jesus.  If 
we  had  them,  they  would  be  unintelligible  except  to 
scholars  who  could  read  Aramaic;  and  most  of  us 
would  still  have  to  depend  upon  the  words  of  a  trans- 
lation. Enough  if  we  possess  in  Greek  or  English  the 
exact  teachings  of  Jesus,  though  the  words  are  those 
of  John  or  of  English  translators. 

How,  then,  about  the  teachings  themselves? 
Granting  that  Wendt  is  right  when  he  says  that  they 
cover  exactly  the  same  circle  of  truth  as  those  in  the 
synoptics,  why  are  they  so  much  deeper  and  more 
spiritual  in  John  ?     Several  facts  may  explain  this. 

First,   the  synoptics  and  John  were  for  different 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  137 

readers.  The  synoptics,  as  we  have  seen,  are  drawn 
from  sources  that  were  purely  evangelistic — like  Peter's 
oral  gospel,  or  that  were  for  the  guidance  and  cheer  of 
beginners  in  the  Christian  way — like  Matthew's  Logia. 
Evidently  in  such  sources  there  would  be  little  place 
for  the  deeper  things  of  Christ.  An  unconverted  audi- 
ence would  not  be  interested  in  these  deeper  things; 
and  those  who  had  advanced  but  a  little  way  in  the 
Christian  life  would  not  profit  by  them.  But  John 
was  written  for  maturer  Christians — for  those  who  al- 
ready were  pondering  such  subjects  as  the  union  of 
the  human  and  the  divine  in  Christ;  evidently  such 
readers  were  ready  to  profit  by  a  teaching  that  set  forth 
the  deepest  truths.  Even  in  the  present  day,  the 
Fourth  Gospel  appeals  rather  to  the  Christian  of  ripe 
experience  and  full  spiritual  development  than  to  the 
beginner  or  the  unbeliever. 

Second,  the  apostle  John— if  the  Fourth  Gospel 
comes  directly  or  indirectly  from  him — may  have  been 
more  receptive  of  deep  truths  than  the  other  apostles. 
The  teachings  of  Jesus  varied  according  to  the  char- 
acter of  his  hearers,  being  sometimes  hidden  in  para- 
bles and  sometimes  open  (John  16  :  29),  now  dwelling 
on  the  simple  truths  and  duties  of  daily  life,  and  again 
interpreting  the  mysteries  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
(Mark  4:11).  He  spake  to  the  people  and  to  his  own 
intimate  disciples  as  they  were  able  to  hear  (Mark 
4  :  33,  John  16  :  12).     This  was  natural,  and  is  ex- 


138    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

actly  what  all  wise  teachers  do.  The  difference  in 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  would  be  no  greater  than  that 
between  a  sermon  by  a  modern  preacher  to  an  audience 
gathered  from  the  streets,  and  a  quiet  talk  by  the  same 
preacher  to  his  own  church  people  at  a  Lenten  service. 
Now,  it  is  certain  that  Jesus  gave  his  deepest  teachings 
to  the  little  band  of  apostles;  and  it  is  probable  that 
John  was  by  nature  more  appreciative  of  these  teach- 
ings than  were  the  others.  He  was  the  nephew  of  Mary 
who  pondered  such  things  in  her  heart  (Luke  2  :  19, 
51);  when  he  became  a  disciple  he  was,  so  we  suppose, 
scarcely  more  than  a  lad,  and  correspondingly  recep- 
tive: and  he  was  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  and 
who  leaned  upon  his  bosom.  If  any  gospel  was  to 
reveal  the  heart  of  Christ,  it  would  be  one  prepared  by 
such  an  apostle.  And  the  difference  between  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  in  the 
synoptics  is  explained  in  part  by  the  difference  be- 
tween the  biographers. 

Third,  the  deeper  meaning  in  Jesus'  teachings  may 
have  become  evident  to  John  in  later  years.  John 
wrote  his  gospel  long  after  the  others  and  in  his  old 
age.  For  years  he  has  been  meditating  upon  the 
teachings  of  Jesus,  and  interpreting  them  according 
to  his  own  deepening  spiritual  experience.  Christ's 
promise  of  the  Comforter  who  should  teach  his  dis- 
ciples all  things  and  bring  all  things  to  their  remem- 
brance has  been  fulfilled  to  John.    So  in  the  words  of 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  139 

Jesus  he  sees  meanings  that  he  failed  to  see  at  first; 
they  have  grown  more  clear  and  wonderful  as  the  years 
have  gone  by.  How  natural,  then,  that  as  he  writes 
them  down,  he  should  try  to  give  their  full  significance 
as  it  now  appears  to  his  mind  illumined  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Indeed,  Browning,  in  his  "  Death  in  the  Des- 
ert" (concerning  which  Sanday  says,  "  As  an  imagina- 
tive reproduction  of  the  circumstances  and  frame  of 
mind  in  which  the  gospel  was  written,  it  is  the  best  that 
I  know''),  makes  the  aged  apostle  declare  that  this  was 
the  main  reason  why  he  wrote: 

"  Since  much  that  at  the  first,  in  deed  and  word, 
Lay  simply  and  sufficiently  exposed, 
Had  grown  (or  else  my  soul  was  grown  to  match, — 
Fed  through  such  years,  familiar  with  such  light, 
Guarded  and  guided  still  to  see  and  speak) 
Of  new  significance  and  fresh  result; 
"What  first  were  guessed  as  points,  I  now  knew  stars 
And  named  them  in  the  gospel  I  have  writ." 

The  third  group  of  differences — those  found  in 
Christ's  self-revelation — may  be  accounted  for  along 
the  lines  already  indicated.  Whether  his  divine  nature 
and  Messianic  mission  were  knov/n  to  Jesus  before  his 
baptism  is  a  question  open  to  debate:  but  few,  except 
those  who  reject  the  story  of  the  baptism,  can  doubt 
that  from  the  time  of  the  baptism  he  had  full  knowl- 
edge of  his  nature  and  w^ork.  His  disclosure  of  that 
knowledge  to  others  would  depend  upon  their  con- 
dition.    If  their  idea  of  the  Messiah  was  a  misleading 


140    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

one,  the  statement  "I  am  He"  would  be  harmful 
rather  than  helpful.  For  example,  in  Galilee  the  peo- 
ple seem  to  have  been  expecting  a  Messiah  who  would 
gratify  their  longings  for  material  prosperity,  idleness, 
and  self-indulgence;  the  five  thousand  whom  he  fed 
one  springtime  afternoon  were  quick  to  decide  that 
this  was  a  king  after  their  heart's  desire;  and  even  the 
twelve  sympathized  with  them.  Accordingly,  the 
work  in  Galilee  had  to  be  restricted  to  teaching  the  true 
nature  of  the  Kingdom  of  God;  not  until  the  Galileans 
should  grasp  that  truth — and  they  never  did — could 
he  proclaim  himself  the  king.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Samaritans,  who  drew  their  idea  of  the  Messiah 
wholly  from  the  Pentateuch,  were  looking  for  a  teacher 
like  Moses  (Deut.  18  :  15,  John  4  :  25),  who  should 
lead  them  into  all  truth;  and  there  was  no  reason  why 
Jesus  should  not  say  plainly  to  the  woman  at  the  well, 
"I  that  speak  unto  thee  am  he"  (John  4  :  26). 

The  degree,  then,  to  which  Jesus  would  reveal  him- 
self to  the  Judeans  and  especially  to  the  Sanhedrin, 
who  controlled  all  Judean  thought,  would  depend  up- 
on their  preparation  for  that  revelation.  Evidently 
they  were  not  ready  toreceive  such  a  Messiah  as  Jesus; 
but  there  seems  to  have  been  no  preliminary  work  of 
preparation  lacking  to  make  them  ready.  The  priests 
who  had  turned  the  temple  into  a  robber's  den  needed 
no  further  instruction  before  they  should  be  confronted 
with  the  question  whether  they  would  accept  one  who 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  141 

would  treat  it  as  the  Father's  house.  The  rabbis  who 
claimed  the  authority  that  came  from  professing  to  sit 
in  Moses'  seat  knew  well  enough  that  when  the  Mes- 
siah appeared  their  proud  prerogative  must  be  sur- 
rendered. And  the  Pharisees,  w^hose  sweet  sense  of 
self-righteousness  was  fostered  by  emphasis  of  every 
jot  and  tittle  of  the  law,  looked  forward  to  a  king 
who  should  be  the  new  lawgiver.  There  was  no  need 
to  wait  for  further  preparation — except,  indeed,  the 
preparation  of  repentance  which  the  Baptist  preached 
— before  Jesus  should  proclaim  his  Messiahship  to  the 
Judeans. 

The  work  in  Judea  began  with  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple — an  act  that  called  immediate  attention  to  the 
claims  of  Jesus,  and  challenged  the  authorities  to  do 
their  duty  as  leaders  of  the  people  by  passing  upon 
those  claims.  And  at  every  subsequent  visit  to  the 
home  of  the  Sanhedrin  there  was  a  fresh  challenge,  in 
the  form  of  further  Messianic  work  or  teachings.  Very 
probably  Jesus,  from  the  beginning,  had  little  hope  that 
the  Sanhedrin  would  accept  him;  but  they  must  not  be 
left  in  ignorance  of  what  he  was  and  what  he  sought 
from  them.  When  they  at  last,  in  the  name  of  the 
nation,  should  pronounce  him  an  impostor  worthy  of 
death,  their  act  must  be  without  the  excuse  that  he  had 
not  clearly  set  before  them  his  credentials.  The  dif- 
ference, then,  between  his  self-revelation,  here  and 
elsewhere,  is  natural. 


142    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

And  yet  there  are  various  indications  in  this  same 
Gospel  of  John  that  the  revelation  was  not  as  unmis- 
takable as  at  first  we  might  suppose.  For  example, 
Nicodemus,  despite  the  cleansing  of  the  temple,  sees 
in  Jesus  only  a  teacher  come  from  God.  And  far 
along  in  the  ministry,  as  we  have  noted,  the  Jews 
(by  w^hich  term  John  designates  the  leaders  at  Jeru- 
salem) come  round  about  him  with  the  question, 
"How  long  dost  thou  hold  us  in  suspense?  If  thou 
art  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly"  (John  10  :  24).  Here, 
again,  we  must  recognize  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  not 
a  biography,  but  an  interpretation.  John  sets  forth 
the  inner  meaning  which  lies  beneath  the  outward  act. 
He  shows  us  Jesus,  not  as  the  Jews  actually  saw  him, 
but  as  they  might  have  seen,  had  they  in  spirit  been 
prepared  to  see.  For  example,  when  the  Baptist, 
pointing  out  Jesus,  says  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God," 
— a  term  taken  from  Isaiah  53  :  7 — John  puts  into 
that  term  its  fulness  of  meaning  by  adding  "that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world"  (1  :  29).  Or,  again, 
in  the  enigmatical  words  of  Jesus,  "  Destroy  this  tem- 
ple, and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up"  (2  :  19) — 
whose  surface  meaning  seems  to  have  been  the  one 
indicated  by  Mark  (14  :  57) — John  finds  a  deeper 
meaning  revealed  by  meditation  upon  his  death  and 
resurrection.  The  conversation  with  Nicodemus  illus- 
trates clearly  the  way  in  which,  when  John  reports 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  "  reminiscence  deepens  uncon- 


THE  JOHANNINE  PROBLEM  143 

sciously  into  reflection,"  till  we  can  hardly  tell  where 
he  ceases  to  be  the  reporter  and  becomes  the  expositor. 
With  such  treatment  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  there  can 
be  little  progress  in  his  self-revelation,  because  the  at- 
tempt is  to  show,  not  the  development  of  faith  in  his 
disciples,  but  the  grounds  for  their  faith;  and  these 
existed  unchanged  from  the  beginning. 

Such  are  the  lines  along  which  those  who  accept  the 
Fourth  Gospel  as  trustworthy  arrive  at  a  solution  of 
the  Johannine  problem.  To  many  critics  the  solu- 
tion seems  unsatisfactory;  and  in  their  opinion  the 
difference  between  the  picture  of  Jesus  in  John  and 
in  the  synoptics  arises  from  the  fact  that  John  is  al- 
most wholly  unhistorical — a  product  of  theological 
speculation  at  the  close  of  the  first  century.  It  is  well 
to  notice,  however,  that  usually  the  factor  most  influ- 
ential in  shaping  this  opinion  is  the  conclusion,  reached 
in  advance,  that  the  main  thesis  of  John — the  divin- 
ity of  Jesus — cannot  be  accepted.  Certainly  many 
of  the  arguments  used  by  hostile  critics  have  little 
weight  apart  from  such  a  decision.  Illingworth  points 
this  out  forcibly  in  one  instance:  "An  eminent  critic 
[Holtzmann,  *Life  of  Jesus,'  40;  see  also  Jiilicher, 
'Introduction  to  New  Testament,'  421],  after  con- 
trasting the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  a  passage  in 
one  of  the  Johannine  discourses,  says,  *  It  is  a  psycho- 
logical impossibility  that  these  two  things  should  have 
proceeded  from  the  same  person.'    This  has  all  the  air 


144    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  a  scientific  statement;  but  mark  what  the  assertion 
involves — the  adequate  capacity  of  the  critic  to  judge 
what  was  or  was  not  possible  in  another  person's  mode 
of  thought  and  speech.  Now  we  should  hardly  be 
disposed  to  concede  such  a  degree  of  insight  to  the 
ablest  of  critics  in  a  case  where  the  person  criticised 
was  a  man  of  supreme  genius  like  Plato  or  Shake- 
speare or  St.  Paul;  for  it  is  the  characteristic  of  such 
men  to  baffle  ordinary  expectation,  and  scatter  the 
prosaic  tests  of  weight  and  measure  to  the  winds. 
But  would  any  man,  with  the  faintest  reputation  for 
sanity  to  maintain,  claim  this  insight  if  he  believed 
the  person  in  question  to  be  God  incarnate,  or  even 
possibly  to  be  God  incarnate  ?  Obviously  not.  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  the  incarnation  had  been  ruled 
out  of  court  before  the  assertion  in  question  was 
made"  ('^Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  25). 

After  all,  the  strongest  proof  that  the  Jesus  of  the 
synoptics  is  the  same  as  the  Jesus  of  John,  lies  in  the 
fact  that  the  Christian  Church  has  never  been  conscious 
of  any  real  difference.  Knowing  him  by  personal  ex- 
perience, and  convinced  of  his  divinity  by  proofs  far 
stronger  than  any  fragmentary  record  of  what  he  did 
and  said  almost  nineteen  hundred  years  ago,  it  has 
studied  that  record  in  the  first  three  gospels  and  again 
in  John,  and  found  throughout  them  all,  the  same 
elder  brother,  Saviour  and  Son  of  God,  whom  to  know 
is  life  everlasting. 


CHAPTER  X 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL 

The  Four  Gospels  give  four  different  pictures  of 
Jesus.  The  early  church  recognized  this  and  sym- 
bolized the  four  by  the  four  living  creatures  standing 
around  the  throne  of  God  in  the  apocalyptic  vision 
(Rev.  4:7;  cj.  Ezek.  1  :  10),  mz.,  the  man,  the  lion, 
the  ox,  the  eagle.  There  was  some  disagreement  about 
the  assignment  of  these  symbols,  though  usually  Mat- 
thew was  the  man  because  it  pictures  Jesus  as  the  Son 
of  David,  the  Messiah;  Mark  was  the  lion  because  it 
pictures  him  as  the  mighty  miracle- wor ker ;  Luke  was 
the  ox  because  it  shows  him  as  the  patient,  self-sacrific- 
ing Saviour;  and  John  was  the  eagle  because  in  it  he 
is  most  plainly  revealed  as  the  sublime  Son  of  God. 

Unless  the  gospels  differ  entirely  from  all  other 
biographies,  they  must  have  each  its  own  characteris- 
tics which  might  properly  be  symbolized.  Even  when 
two  authors  have  equal  opportunity  to  gain  a  knowledge 
of  their  subject,  and  equal  ability  to  state  it,  there  will 
be  a  difference  in  their  books  arising  from  tempera- 
ment. Things  that  appeal  to  the  one  and  are  put  in 
the  foreground,  may  be  almost  ignored  by  the  other 

145 


146    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

because  they  do  not  appeal  to  him.  From  what  we 
know  of  Peter  and  John — two  apostles  so  unlike  in 
temperament — we  cannot  expect  that  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  which  is  practically  Peter's  story  of  Jesus,  will 
contain  the  same  incidents  or  give  the  same  emphasis 
as  the  Gospel  of  John.  Then,  again,  the  same  material 
may  be  treated  very  differently  by  a  writer  who  has  one 
purpose  in  writing  or  one  audience  in  mind,  and  an- 
other writer  who  has  a  different  purpose  or  audience. 
Matthew  wrote  for  the  Hebrews  and  to  set  forth  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah ;  Luke  wrote  for  the  Gentiles  and  to  set 
forth  Jesus  as  the  Saviour  of  all  men:  evidently  their 
two  books  will  not  give  the  same  picture  of  Jesus. 
Each  gospel,  therefore,  must  differ  from  the  others: 
and  its  account  of  Jesus  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  its  authorship  before  it  can  convey  its  full 
meaning. 

All  this  is  familiar  to  us  in  the  case  of  other  biogra- 
phies, but  we  sometimes  forget  it  in  the  case  of  the 
gospels.  Nevertheless  it  is  just  as  important  to  dis- 
cover and  bear  in  mind  individual  characteristics  when 
we  study  the  Four  Gospels  as  when  we  study  any  other 
books  of  history.  Only  in  this  way  can  we  fully  ap- 
preciate the  record.  We  must  learn  where  to  put  the 
emphasis  in  our  reading,  and  how  to  read  between  the 
lines.  As  we  note  concerning  photographs  that  this 
was  a  snapshot  and  this  a  careful  pose,  or  that  for  this 
the  negative  was  not  retouched,  while  for  this  the  wrin- 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       147 

kles  and  blemishes  were  rubbed  out;  and  after  thus 
valuing  our  photographs  decide  about  the  actual  ap- 
pearance of  the  person  they  portray;  in  like  manner  we 
must  note  the  character  of  the  four  pictures  of  Jesus 
before  we  can  determine  what  manner  of  person  he 
was. 

The  foregoing  statements  are  not  equivalent  to  say- 
ing that  the  gospels  are  untrustworthy,  but  only  that, 
like  all  biographies,  they  are  limited  by  the  limitations 
of  their  authors  or  of  those  from  whom  the  material 
was  gained.  None  knew  Jesus  thoroughly,  not  even 
the  disciple  who  leaned  upon  his  breast;  and  no  evan- 
gelist could  write  about  him  without  personal  bias  and 
purposes  that  would  shape  his  narrative. 

Moreover,  when  we  know  and  bear  in  mind  the 
characteristics  of  a  gospel,  we  not  only  read  it  with  new 
intelligence,  but  often  we  find  new  grounds  for  trusting 
its  statements.  For  example,  in  Luke — as  we  shall 
presently  notice — there  are  plain  indications  that  its 
author  looked  upon  the  twelve  with  much  reverence, 
and  disliked  to  state  anything  to  their  discredit;  any 
record,  therefore,  of  their  shortcomings  and  failures 
in  Luke  (and  there  are  many  such)  is  specially  impres- 
sive and  credible,  since  we  are  sure  Luke  would  have 
omitted  it  could  he  have  found  good  excuse  for  so  do- 
ing. Again,  Matthew  is  so  eager  to  point  out  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy  in  Jesus'  life  that  sometimes  he  seems 
to  strain  the  prophecy  in  order  to  make  it  foretell  the 


148    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

particular  event;  but  the  very  far-fetchedness  of  his  ful- 
filments shows  how  careful  he  was  to  treat  his  facts 
honestly.  The  temptation  to  change  them,  more  or  less, 
in  order  to  make  them  meet  the  prophecy,  was  evidently 
great,  yet  he  stoutly  resisted  it. 

Let  us  look,  then,  at  the  four  evangelists  and  their 
four  pictures  of  Christ,  considering  specially  those  facts 
that  reveal  the  characteristics  of  each  gospel. 

Matthew 

Very  little  is  known  of  Matthew  the  apostle  except 
the  fact  that  he  was  a  collector  of  customs  at  Caper- 
naum, and  the  circumstances  of  his  call  to  follow  Jesus. 
In  each  list  of  the  apostles  he  stands  seventh  or  eighth, 
which  gives  a  hint  of  the  estimate  put  upon  his  ability 
by  the  evangelists.  The  uniform  tradition  is  that  he  was 
the  author  of  the  First  Gospel,  and  that  he  wrote  it  in 
Hebrew,  by  which  probably  is  meant  Aramaic.  Some 
truth  must  lie  behind  this  tradition;  for  if  the  apostolic 
authorship  has  been  purely  an  invention  to  give  author- 
ity to  the  gospel,  a  more  important  apostle  would  have 
been  selected.  But  the  author  of  this  gospel  has  incor- 
porated in  it  nearly  the  whole  of  Mark:  and,  as  W.  C. 
Allen  observes,  "It  is  indeed  not  impossible,  but  it  is 
very  improbable,  that  an  apostle  should  rely  upon  the 
work  of  another  for  the  entire  framework  of  his  narra- 
tive." Nor  could  the  First  Gospel  have  been  written 
in  Hebrew,  because  it  reproduces  the  Greek  phraseol- 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       149 

ogy  of  Mark  often  almost  exactly.  The  origin  of  the 
tradition  is  most  simply  explained  by  supposing  that 
Matthew  did  write  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  some  book 
which  was  used  by  the  author  of  the  First  Gospel  as 
the  basis  of  his  work:  and  for  this  reason  the  whole 
compilation  was  called  the  Gospel  According  to  Mat- 
thew. This  has  already  been  pointed  out  in  discus- 
sing the  synoptic  problem. 

Though  the  author  of  the  First  Gospel  must  remain 
unknown,  the  strongly  Hebraic  character  of  his  book 
makes  it  evident  that  he  was  a  Jew;  while  the  broad 
view  he  takes  of  the  mission  of  Christ — beginning  his 
story  with  the  visit  of  the  Gentile  magi  to  the  young 
child  and  ending  with  the  commission  of  the  apostles 
to  make  disciples  of  all  nations — both  found  only  in  this 
gospel — would  indicate  that  he  had  a  wider  horizon 
than  most  Jews  who  lived  in  Palestine.  He  has,  as 
Moffatt  notes,  given  an  unconscious  portrayal  of  him- 
self in  the  saying  of  Jesus,  recorded  in  his  gospel  alone, 
"Every  scribe  who  hath  been  made  a  disciple  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  is  like  unto  a  man  that  is  a  house- 
holder, who  bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treasure  things 
new  and  old"  (13  :  52).  Where  his  home  was,  of 
course,  we  cannot  know.  A  favorite  guess  is  Southern 
Syria — say  Phoenicia — in  which  were  many  Jewish 
Christians. 

That  Matthew  (to  use  the  established  name  for  the 
book)  was  written  primarily  for  Jews  is  unmistakable. 


150    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

It  contains  more  than  forty  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament:  it  traces  the  genealogy  of  Christ  back  to 
Abraham:  it  takes  special  pains  to  point  out  the  ful- 
filment of  prophecy:  it  is  the  only  gospel  to  record 
Jesus'  declaration  that  the  law  is  permanent  (5  :  17- 
19);  and,  indeed,  its  whole  presentation  of  Jesus  is  as 
the  Jewish  Messiah.  Most  fittingly  it  is  placed  as  the 
beginning  of  the  New  Testament,  for  it  forms  a  natural 
transition  from  the  messages  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets.  The  Jewish  readers,  however,  for  whom 
Matthew  was  written,  must  have  lived  outside  of  Pal- 
estine; otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  need  to  fol- 
low Mark  in  translating  Aramaic  words  (27  :  33,  46) 
and  in  stating  a  custom  of  the  Passover  (27  :  15),  or  a 
Sadducean  belief  (22  :  23). 

It  is  generally  held  that  the  book  was  written  not  far 
from  the  year  A.  D.  70;  and,  if  so,  the  character  of  the 
times  explains  the  purpose  of  the  author.  In  that  mad 
revolt  against  Rome,  which  ended  with  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  the  patriotism  of  the  Jews  became  a 
frenzy;  and  many  Jewish  Christians  turned  back  from 
Christ  to  the  national  religion,  or  wavered  in  their  be- 
lief that  he  was  really  the  promised  Messiah.  When 
Jerusalem  fell,  those  who  remained  steadfast  had  to  un- 
dergo another  testing  of  their  faith,  because  this  sore 
calamity  was  so  contrary  to  all  their  expectations  of 
the  Messianic  kingdom.  During  these  trying  hours, 
when  Jewish  Christians,  as  they  thought  about  Jesus, 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       151 

were  repeating  the  question  which  John  the  Baptist  in 
an  hour  of  trial  once  asked,  "  Art  thou  He  that  cometh 
or  look  we  for  another  ? "  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was 
written  to  reassure  them  by  telling  the  life  of  Jesus  in 
such  a  way  as  to  answer  that  question  once  more.  The 
book  is  a  narrative;  but,  as  Dr.  Burton  has  shown 
("Introduction  to  the  Gospels"  12/.),  it  is  a  narrative 
with  an  argumentative  purpose.  What  Matthew  seeks 
to  prove,  so  as  to  establish  the  faith  of  the  perplexed 
and  wavering  Jewish  Christian,  may  be  summed  up 
under  four  heads: 

First,  Jesus  was  the  long  expected  Messiah.  This 
is  proved  by  pointing  out  how  exactly  and  minutely 
the  Old  Testament  Messianic  prophecies  were  ful- 
filled in  his  birth,  life,  and  death.  Such  proof  would 
be  to  Jews  most  convincing,  and  was  repeatedly  used 
by  the  apostles  when  they  preached  to  Jewish  audi- 
ences, beginning  with  Peter's  sermon  at  Pentecost.  It 
seems,  as  we  have  already  said,  that,  in  his  eagerness  to 
find  fulfilments  of  prophecy,  Matthew  sometimes  gets 
far  away  from  the  literal  sense  of  the  Old  Testament 
passages;  e.  g.,  how  can  the  statement  that  God  called 
Israel  out  of  Egypt  (Hos.  11  :  1)  be  a  prophecy  that 
the  infant  Jesus  should  be  brought  back  from  that 
same  land  ?  Is  the  prediction  that  Ramah  would  mourn 
over  its  people  carried  away  to  Babylon  (Jer.  31  :  15) 
in  any  sense  fulfilled  by  the  sorrow  of  Bethlehem  over 
the  babes  murdered  by  Herod  ?     And  who  can  say  cer- 


152    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

tainly  what  prophecy  is  fulfilled  in  the  fact  that  Jesus, 
because  he  dwelt  in  Nazareth,  was  called  a  Nazarene  ? 
But  if  these  fulfilments  seem  far-fetched,  then,  evi- 
dently, the  writer  was  not — as  some  critics  have  sup- 
posed— inventing  incidents  to  fit  the  prophecies; 
rather  he  was  hunting  hard  to  find  prophecies  that 
would  fit  the  incidents. 

Second,  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  was  the  true  Mes- 
sianic kingdom.  This  fact  is  set  forth,  among  other 
ways,  by  four  groups  of  Jesus'  own  sayings,  viz.: 
(5-8)  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  is  like  an 
inaugural  proclamation  stating  who  are  the  subjects, 
and  what  are  the  laws,  the  life,  etc.,  of  the  kingdom; 
(10)  the  instructions  to  the  apostles  as  to  how  they  are 
to  proclaim  the  kingdom;  (18)  the  conduct  of  members 
of  the  kingdom  to  each  other;  (24-25)  the  final  con- 
summation of  the  kingdom.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the 
transition  from  each  of  these  groups  to  the  narrative 
is  by  practically  the  same  formula,  "  And  it  came  to  pass 
when  Jesus  had  finished  these  words,"  which  some 
think  to  be  an  indication  by  the  evangelist  that  all  the 
groups  were  taken  from  the  same  collection  of  sayings, 
i.  e.,  that  they  formed  a  part,  or  Wendt  would  say  the 
whole,  of  the  so-called  Logia  or  Quelle. 

Third,  Jesus  offered  the  kingdom  to  his  own  nation; 
but,  despite  his  w^arnings,  they  refused  it,  and  put  him 
to  death.  In  no  other  gospel  is  there  such  a  clear  pict- 
ure of  the  attitude  of  the  Jews  toward  Jesus,  or  such 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       153 

a  full  answer  to  the  objections  with  which  they  sought 
to  justify  their  attitude.  Nor  have  we  elsewhere  such 
utterances  of  warning  and  denunciation.  The  most 
emphatic  condemnation  of  the  Pharisees  (23),  and  the 
clearest  predictions  of  the  doom  of  the  nation  (8  :  11- 
12,  21  :  43)  are  peculiar  to  Matthew. 

Fourth,  because  the  Jews  rejected  their  Messiah  they 
have  lost  their  place  in  his  kingdom;  and  it  is  now 
open  to  all  nations.  Many  of  the  parables  peculiar  to 
Matthew  emphasize  the  exclusion  of  unworthy  Jews 
from  the  kingdom,  e.  g.y  plants  rooted  up  (15  :  13), 
tares  burned  (13  :  30),  bad  fish  cast  away  (13  :  48), 
foolish  virgins  shut  out  (25  :  11),  the  guest  without  a 
wedding  garment  cast  out  (22  :  13).  And  this  gos- 
pel alone  gives  the  plain  statement  of  Christ,  "The 
Kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  away  from  you,  and 
given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof" 
(21  :  43).  Henceforth,  the  field  is  the  world  (13  :  38), 
and  the  laborers  in  it  are  to  make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions {2S  :  19).  "The  author's  aim  is  by  no  means 
attained  when  he  has  advanced  evidence  that  Jesus  is 
the  Messiah.  He  reaches  his  goal  only  when,  with  this 
as  the  first  step  of  his  argument,  he  has  shown  that 
Jesus  the  Messiah  founded  a  kingdom  of  universal 
scope,  abolishing  all  Jewish  limitations"  (Burton). 

When  the  gospels  were  being  brought  together  in  one 
manuscript,  Matthew  was  generally  supposed  to  have 
been  written  first,  and  so  it  was  placed  first  in  the  col- 


154    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

lection.  This  position,  which  it  has  held  ever  since, 
has  increased  its  importance.  Readers  of  the  gospels 
usually  begin  with  Matthew,  and  are  more  familiar 
with  it  than  with  the  other  gospels.  Its  abundance 
of  material,  its  attractive  style  and  its  convenient 
arrangement  for  memorizing,  secure  its  popularity. 
Jiilicher  pronounces  it,  "the  principal  gospel  of 
Christendom,  the  gospel  by  which  the  picture  of  Jesus 
has  been  engraved  on  all  our  minds  .  .  .  the  most 
important  book  ever  written." 

Mark 

If,  as  early  tradition  states  and  the  majority  of 
modern  scholars  agree,  the  author  of  this  gospel  was 
the  John  Mark  of  Acts,  who  is  usually  identified  with 
the  Mark  of  the  Epistles,  we  know  considerable  about 
him.  He  was  a  cousin  of  Barnabas  (Col.  4  :  10),  and 
probably  like  him  a  Levite.  Early  writers  call  him 
"the  maimed-fingered";  if  this  indicates  a  physical 
defect,  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  serve  in  the  temple. 
His  home  was  in  Jerusalem,  and  was  evidently  one  of 
some  wealth  (Acts  12  :  12-13).  He  may  have  known 
Jesus,  despite  the  statement  of  Papias  that  he  had 
neither  heard  nor  accompanied  him;  indeed,  there  is 
ground  for  supposing  that  the  Last  Supper  was  in  his 
house,  and  that  he  himself,  roused  from  sleep  by  the 
noise  of  soldiers  outside,  was  the  "certain  young  man" 
who  followed  the  armed  band  to  Gethsemane.     The 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       155 

incident  is  given  only  in  Mark  (14  :  51-2),  and  there 
seems  no  reason  for  its  narration  except  personal  in- 
terest. 

While  at  times  he  worked  with  Barnabas  and  Paul 
(Acts  12  :  25;  15  :  39,  Col.  4  :  10),  he  was  most  closely 
associated  with  Peter,  who  calls  him  "  my  son"  (I  Peter 
5:13).     His  boyhood  in  Jerusalem  had  probably  given 
him  a  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Latin,  which  were 
sealed  tongues  to  the  Galilean  fishermen;  so  Papias 
may  be  right  when  he  says  that  Mark  acted  as  inter- 
preter for  Peter.     In  general  he  seems  to  have  been  a 
good  assistant  rather  than  a  leader— not  a  prophet 
or  teacher,  but  "useful  for  ministering"  (II  Timothy 
4:11).     All  this  agrees  with  the  impression  as  to  its 
author  which  we  gain  from  the  gospel  itself,  viz.:  "  that 
he  was  a  born  Jew,  familiar  with  the  circle  of  the  original 
apostles,  and  especially  interested  in  Peter,  but  also  a 
much-travelled  person,  rejoicing  in  the  fact  that  the 
gospel  was  to  be  preached  to  all  nations"  (Julicher). 
According  to  Papias,  as  we  have  seen,  Mark's  story 
of  Jesus  is  largely  that  which  Peter  used  to  tell.     This 
seems  probable.     There  certainly  are  abundant  marks 
of  an  eye-witness— graphic  touches  that  are  given  sim- 
ply because  the  scene  remains  in  memory  (e.  g,,  4  :  38; 
5:5;  6  :  39;  10  :  32,  50);    and  they  are  what  Peter 
might  have  seen.     Also,  in  the  incidents  where  Peter, 
James,  and  John  were  the  only  apostles  present  (5 :  37^. ; 
14  :  33^.),  as  well  as  in  the  story  of  Peter's  denial 


156    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

(14  :  54,  66-72),  there  are  details  not  found  in  the 
other  gospels.  At  the  same  time  some  incidents  are 
omitted  which  Peter  from  modesty  or  shame  would  not 
narrate,  e.  g.,  the  walking  on  the  water,  the  promise 
about  the  rock  and  keys,  the  stater  in  the  fish's  mouth, 
and  the  question  about  forgiving  a  brother  (all  told  in 
Matthew  14  :  24^5^.;  17  :  4;  16  :  18/.;  18  :  21/.);  also 
the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  and  the  sifting  by 
Satan  (both  told  in  Luke  5  :  1/.;  22  :  31).  The  limits 
of  the  story,  too,  are  those  laid  down  by  Peter  when,  at 
the  choice  of  Matthias,  he  said  an  apostle  must  be  a 
witness,  "beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John  until 
the  day  he  was  received  up  from  us''  (Acts  1  :  20). 

Doubtless  Peter  was  not  the  only  source  of  informa- 
tion. The  book  falls  naturally  into  two  main  divisions 
viz.:  the  Galilean  ministry  (chaps.  1-9)  and  the  final 
days  in  Jerusalem  (chaps.  11-16),  connected  by  a  brief 
account  of  the  Perean  ministry  (chap.  10).  The  sec- 
ond main  division  is  much  the  fuller,  and  has  more  of 
Jesus'  sayings.  One  part  of  it  (chap.  13)  seems  to 
have  been  taken  from  a  written  source;  and  Mark's 
residence  in  Jerusalem  would  acquaint  him  with  what 
Jesus  said  and  did  there. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  evidently  was  written  for 
Gentiles  rather  than  for  Jews.  There  are  no  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  except  in  conversations 
and  in  the  opening  verses  (1  :  2-3).  Jewish  customs, 
etc.,  are  explained  (7  :  2-4;    12  :  18;   13  :  3;   14  :  12; 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       157 

15  :  42).     And  though  he  loves  to  quote  the  Aramaic 
words  of  Christ,  he  always  translates  them  (3  :  17; 
5  :  41;  7  :  11,  34;  14  :  36;  15  :  34).     In  Christ's  state- 
ment that  the  temple  should  be  a  house  of  prayer 
Mark  alone  has  the  words  "  for  all  the  nations,"    thus 
putting  the  Gentile  side  by  side  with  the  Jew  (11  :  17). 
Whether  the  Gentile  world  for  which  Mark  wrote 
was,  in  particular,  the  Roman  world,  is  not  so  evident; 
but  there  are  indications  that  this  was  the  fact,  e.  g., 
Jewish  money  is  given  its  Roman  equivalent  (12  :  42), 
Latin  words  are  sometimes  used  (6  :  27;   15  :  39,  44), 
and  the  teaching  about  divorce  recognizes  the  wife's 
putting  away  her  husband,  which  was  a  Roman  but 
not  a  Jewish  practice  (10  :  12).     Most  scholars  accept 
as  true  the  tradition  that  Peter  spent  his  last  days  in 
Rome;  then  Mark  may  have  written  his  gospel  there, 
as  various  early  writers  declare.     The  fact  that  Rufus 
and  Alexander  were  sons  of  Simon  of  Cyrene  (15  :  21), 
which  Mark  learned  through  his  residence  in  Jeru- 
salem, may  have  been  mentioned  by  him  because  he 
knew  them  personally,  or  possibly  because  Rufus  was 
known  to  the  Roman  Christians  (Rom.  16  :  13):   the 
other  synoptists  saw  no  reason  for  repeating  the  state- 
ment.    We   have   already   noticed   when   discussing 
dates  that  this  gospel  seems  to  have  been  written  before 
A.  D.  70;  but  whether  Peter  was  still  living,  as  Clement 
of  Alexandria  says,  or  whether  both  he  and  Paul  were 
dead,  as  Irenseus  affirms,  we  cannot  tell. 


158    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

If  we  look  at  Mark  as  largely  reproducing  the  story 
Peter  was  accustomed  to  tell  those  who  asked  him 
about  Jesus — a  story  of  which  we  have  the  outline  in 
the  report  of  what  Peter  said  to  Cornelius,  Acts  10  :  37- 
42 — and  as  also  representing  the  oral  gospel  which  those 
who  were  scattered  abroad  after  the  death  of  Stephen 
told  when  they  went  about  preaching  the  Word  (Acts 
8  :  4),  we  shall  see  the  explanation  of  its  characteristics. 
"The  story  is  told  as  it  would  be  in  conversation:  dia- 
logue plays  a  large  part  in  it,  and  the  utterances  of 
speakers  are  introduced  in  the  plainest  way  and  gen- 
erally by  *he  saith'  and  *  they  say'  with  no  further  dis- 
tinction of  the  interlocutors"  (Robinson,  "Study  of  the 
Gospels,"  40).  It  is  a  plain  story,  such  as  an  unlettered 
man  would  tell,  with  a  use  of  colloquial  terms  and  a 
lack  of  literary  finish,  which  led  even  the  writers  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  to  make  some  changes  when  they 
incorporated  the  gospel  in  their  own  books.  "There 
is  something  fresh  and  strong  and  primitive  about  the 
whole  presentation,  particularly  in  its  very  awkward- 
nesses." 

It  is  an  unbiased  story,  setting  forth  the  facts 
concretely  without  theological  speculations  or  senti- 
mental touches — a  story  possible  only  in  those  earliest 
days  when  the  apostles  felt  that  their  great  work  was 
simply  to  be  faithful  witnesses  to  what  they  had  seen 
and  heard.  While  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  clearly  set 
forth,  his  humanity  is  made  equally  evident:   indeed, 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       159 

some  of  Mark's  statements  are  omitted  or  toned  down 
in  the  other  gospels,  apparently  for  fear  that  such  plain 
revelations  of  human  limitations  might  be  stumbling 
blocks  in  the  way  of  accepting  the  divinity  of  Jesus. 
For  example,  that  he  was  a  carpenter  himself  as  well  as 
a  carpenter's  son  (6  :  3),  that  at  one  stage  of  his  min- 
istry his  friends  thought  him  insane  (3  :  21),  that  in 
opening  the  eyes  of  a  blind  man  he  had  to  proceed  by 
stages  (8  :  22-26),  and  that  in  curing  the  deaf  and 
tongue-tied  man  he  put  forth  prolonged  effort  (7  :  32- 
37):  these  facts  are  omitted  by  Matthew  and  Luke; 
and  while  Mark  says  that  at  Nazareth  "  He  could  do 
no  mighty  work  save  that  he  laid  his  hands  upon  a  few 
sick  people  and  healed  them"  (6  :  5),  Matthew  shades 
down  this  statement  of  his  inability  into  "  He  did  not 
many  mighty  works  there"  (13  :  58). 

It  is  an  evangelist's  story,  arranged  to  bring  out 
gradually  the  disclosure  of  Christ's  divine  claims,  em- 
phasizing his  miracles  as  proofs  of  divinity,  and  giving 
large  space  to  the  final  scenes  in  Jerusalem — just  such 
a  story  as  would  hold  the  attention  and  touch  the  heart 
of  an  audience  not  yet  won  to  faith,  and  make  them 
confess,  as  did  the  centurion  beside  the  cross,  "  Truly 
this  man  was  the  Son  of  God"  (15  :  39).  While  fre- 
quent mention  is  made  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  taught, 
very  few  of  his  teachings  are  given:  what  he  was,  as 
proved  by  what  he  did  and  suffered,  is  the  great  lesson 
of  the  book. 


160    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

In  reading  this  story  we  come  nearest  to  seeing 
Jesus  as  the  men  of  his  day  saw  him.  We  have,  not 
a  portrait  carefully  painted  to  show  the  inner  nature, 
as  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  nor  even  a  photograph  with 
certain  lines  softened  or  erased,  as  in  the  other  two 
synoptics:  we  have  in  Mark  a  photograph  printed  from 
a  negative  as  yet  untouched.  Whether  such  a  picture 
is  really  more  true  and  satisfying  may,  perhaps,  be 
questioned;  but  its  strict  literalness  makes  it  most 
valuable.  And  whereas  Mark  formerly  was  the  least 
prized  of  all  the  gospels,  because  it  contained  so  little 
not  found  in  the  others,  to-day  it  receives  special  at- 
tention as  not  only  the  most  primitive  but  also  the 
most  fresh  and  vivid  and  objective  of  them  all. 

Luke 

The  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the  Book  of  Acts  are  by 
the  same  author.  This  is  undisputed,  and  is  evi- 
denced not  only  by  the  opening  ver^e  of  Acts,  but  also 
aad  more  strongly  by  vocabulary,  style,  and  arrange- 
ment, which  are  the  same  in  both  books.  Luke,  the 
companion  of  Paul,  was  probably  the  author.  Such 
was  the  early  and  uniform  tradition,  and  since  Luke 
was  by  no  means  a  prominent  character  in  the  apostolic 
age,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  the  tradition 
should  have  arisen  unless  it  was  based  on  fact.  More- 
over, certain  passages  in  Acts,  written  in  the  first  person 
plural,  are  unquestionably  by  an  eye-witness;  and  the 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       161 

argument  is  strong  that  this  eye-witness  was  Luke, 
and  that  these  passages  are  by  the  same  person  who 
wrote  the  rest  of  the  book.  We  know  that  Luke  was 
a  Gentile  physician  (Col.  4  :  14),  and  we  note  his 
trained  use  of  medical  terms,  and  the  fact  that  he  alone 
records  Jesus'  use  of  saying,  "Physician,  heal  thyself" 
(4  :  23).  His  gospel  shows  literary  finish,  and  an 
historical  sense  much  beyond  the  other  gospels,  as 
might  be  expected  from  a  man  of  broader  educa- 
tion. 

His  sources  of  information  are  various.  He  knows 
about  written  records  (1  :  1-4),  and — as  we  have  seen 
— made  use  of  Mark's  gospel  (whose  author  he  knew 
personally,  Phile.  24)  and  of  the  Logia.  Probably  his 
source  for  the  story  of  the  infancy  was  a  written  one — 
the  style  indicates  this — and  he  may  have  used  other 
similar  sources.  Then  he  may  have  learned  much 
from  Paul;  for  there  are  plain  indications  that  Paul, 
though  he  never  met  Jesus  during  his  ministry,  was 
well  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  that  ministry  {e.  g., 
Acts  20  :  35;  I  Cor.  15  :  1-8;  9  :  14).  Also,  in  his 
travels  with  Paul  he  must  have  met  many  early  dis- 
ciples {e.  g.y  Philip  the  evangelist  at  Csesarea,  Acts 
21:8)  who  could  give  him  first-hand  information 
about  Jesus.  We  notice  that  he  seems  to  have  had 
special  information  about  the  court  of  Herod  (3  : 1, 19; 
8:3;  9  :  7-9;  13  :  31;  23  :  7-12)  gained,  perhaps, 
from  Manaen  (Acts  13  :  1)  or  from  Joanna  (8:3). 


162    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

In  all,  more  than  one-half  of  his  gospel  is  not  found  in 
the  other  synoptics. 

His  two  books  are  dedicated  to  Theophilus,  whom 
some  suppose  to  be  any  "Lover  of  God,"  but  who 
was  probably  a  real  person — a  Roman  of  rank  (so  the 
title  "most  excellent"  would  indicate:  cf.  Acts  24  :  3; 
26  :  25;  23  :  26).  Of  course,  he  intended  them  for 
others  besides  Theophilus,  and  many  things  indicate 
that  the  readers  he  had  in  mind  were  Gentiles  and 
especially  Romans.  He  substitutes  Gentile  terms  for 
Jewish — e,  g.,  master  or  teacher  for  rabbi,  the  skull 
for  Golgotha  (23  :  33),  zealot  for  Canansean  (6  :  16); 
he  tells  of  "the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  which  is 
called  the  Passover"  (22  :  1);  he  explains  that  Caper- 
naum is  a  city  of  Galilee  (4  :  31)  and  that  Arimathea  is 
a  city  of  the  Jews  (23  :  51);  he  calls  the  little  sheet  of 
water  in  Galilee  a  lake  and  not  a  sea;  he  even  states 
that  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  nigh  unto  Jerusalem  (Acts 
1  :  12).  On  the  other  hand,  he  takes  for  granted  that 
his  readers  know  just  where  the  Market  of  Appius  and 
the  Three  Taverns  are,  and  so  will  understand  how  far 
out  from  Rome  the  brethren  came  to  meet  Paul  (Acts 
28  :  15). 

Luke  plainly  states  the  purpose  of  his  writing:  it  is 
that  Theophilus  may  know  that  the  Christian  faith, 
which  he  has  embraced,  is  founded  on  facts  that  can- 
not be  shaken  (1  :  4).  These  facts  are  not  alone  those 
set  forth  in  his  gospel:  the  Book  of  Acts  is  a  continua- 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       163 

tion  of  them:  and  there  is  reason  to  think  that  Luke 
intended  to  write  still  another  book — alas!  that  it  was 
left  unwritten — carrying  on  further  the  story  of  the 
work  of  Christ  as  it  was  wrought  through  his  apostles. 
Other  writers  already  have  recorded  some  of  these  facts; 
but  it  seems  to  Luke  that,  having  special  opportunities 
for  investigation  and  giving  special  care  to  his  task, 
he  can  improve  upon  their  work  (1  :  3).  He  writes, 
therefore,  as  an  historian,  and  Dr.  Ramsay,  who  is 
specially  qualified  to  pronounce  upon  Luke's  other 
book.  Acts,  declares  that  for  trustworthiness,  skill  in 
arranging  his  material,  and  sympathetic  historical  in- 
sight, he  should  be  reckoned  "  among  the  historians  of 
the  first  rank."  He  writes,  also,  as  a  literary  artist — 
showing  this  not  only  in  his  command  of  Greek  and 
his  versatile  style,  but  still  more  in  his  artistic  treatment 
of  each  subject,  his  "rare  combination  of  descriptive 
power  with  simplicity  and  dignity,"  and  his  "insight 
into  the  lights  and  shadows  of  character,  and  the  con- 
flict between  spiritual  forces  "  (Plummer). 

Prompted  by  his  historical  instinct,  Luke  tries  to 
arrange  his  material  in  chronological  order.  He  takes 
from  the  Logia  practically  the  same  extracts  as  those  in 
Matthew;  but  instead  of  giving  them  in  a  few  large 
collections,  he  breaks  them  up  and  puts  them,  so  far 
as  possible,  in  their  original  setting.  In  his  use  of 
Mark  he  follows  Mark's  order  very  closely  in  the  first 
part;    even  as  Matthew  does  in  the  last  part.     But 


164    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Luke  has  a  long  passage  (9  :  51-18  :  14)  inserted 
into  Mark's  narrative  and  consisting  largely  of  matter 
peculiar  to  himself.  The  indications  of  time  for  the 
events  in  this  passage  are  few  and  vague,  and  the  in- 
cidents seem  to  be  gathered  from  various  periods  of 
Jesus'  ministry.  Where  to  place  them  is  a  difficult 
problem,  and  gives  rise  to  the  chief  disagreements  be- 
tween various  harmonies  of  the  gospels  or  chronol- 
ogies of  the  Hfe  of  Christ.  Possibly  Luke  himself  did 
not  know  just  where  to  put  them,  and  threw  them  to- 
gether as  disconnected  stories  he  had  gathered  from 
V9.rious  sources;  indeed,  some  critics  would  call  this 
portion  of  his  gospel  "Luke's  scrap-basket."  Possi- 
bly, however,  the  section — which  has  its  peculiarities — 
was  taken  by  Luke  from  some  written  source,  not  used 
by  Mark  or  Matthew. 

Luke,  with  the  great  Gentile  world  in  mind,  sets 
forth  a  universal  gospel.  Jesus,  whose  genealogy  is 
traced  back  to  Adam  instead  of  stopping  with  Abra- 
ham, is  the  Saviour  for  all  men — for  Samaritans,  Gen- 
tiles, publicans,  sinners,  outcasts,  as  well  as  for  Jews. 
Most  of  the  parables  peculiar  to  Luke's  gospel  are 
evangelistic;  e.  g.,  the  great  supper,  the  good  Samari- 
tan, the  Pharisee  and  the  publican,  the  lost  sheep,  the 
lost  coin,  the  prodigal  son.  There  is  special  interest  in 
women  and  in  the  life  of  the  home.  There  are  numer- 
ous teachings  about  riches — not  in  condemnation  but 
in  warning;  possibly  this  was  because  Theophilus  was 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       165 

wealthy,  or  possibly  Paul,  when  taking  up  his  great 
collection  for  the  poor  at  Jerusalem,  emphasized  Jesus' 
teachings  about  riches  and  poverty,  and  this  impressed 
Luke  who  was  with  Paul  part  of  the  time.  There  is 
much  emphasis  of  prayer,  both  by  direct  teachings  and 
by  references  to  Christ's  example.  The  catholic  spirit 
of  this  gospel,  harmonizing  as  it  does  with  the  teachings 
of  Paul,  is  a  better  reason  than  the  mere  fact  that  Luke 
at  times  travelled  with  Paul,  for  calling  it  "  the  Gospel 
of  Paul." 

Luke,  more  than  Matthew,  in  following  Mark's  ac- 
count of  Jesus,  omits  details  that  might  seem  incon- 
sistent with  sinlessness  and  full  divinity;  e.  g.y  the 
violent  acts  in  cleansing  the  temple;  such  emotions  as 
anger,  grief,  groaning,  vehemence;  the  strange  sorrow 
and  homesickness  of  Gethsemane,  and  the  cry  on  the 
cross,  '*  My  God,  My  God,  Why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?"  He  also  shows  deep  respect  for  the  apostles 
(a  title  he  uses  frequently  while  Matthew  and  Mark 
use  it  rarely),  and  dislikes  to  record  anything  to  their 
discredit;  e.  g.,  he  omits  the  rebuke  to  Peter  (Mark 
8  :  33),  the  censure  of  the  twelve  (Mark  8  :  17/.),  the 
ambitious  request  of  James  and  John  (Mark  10  :  35/.), 
and  the  flight  at  Jesus'  arrest  (Mark  14  :  50) ;  he  tones 
down  the  denial  by  Peter  (22  :  54-62),  and  the  rebuke 
to  the  twelve  on  the  lake  (8  :  25);  he  excuses  the 
sleep  at  Gethsemane  as  "for  sorrow"  (22  :  45),  and 
Peter's  proposal   to  build   three  tabernacles  on  the 


166    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

mount  as  "not  knowing  what  he  said"  (9  :  33).  In 
all  this  the  spirit  of  a  Christian  of  the  second  generation 
is  shown.  His  picture  of  Jesus  needs  Mark's  picture 
as  its  complement. 

John 

The  Fourth  Gospel  has  been  so  fully  considered  in 
the  discussion  of  the  Johannine  problem  that  little 
need  be  added  here. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  present  arrange- 
ment of  the  contents  of  this  gospel  is  not  in  all  places 
the  original  one.  Certainly  it  is  not  in  all  places  the 
probable  one.  For  example,  if  chapter  5  is  placed 
after  chapter  6,  then  the  notes  of  locality  become 
harmonious:  Jesus  in  Galilee  (4  :  54)  goes  across  the 
lake  (6  :  1)  and,  after  feeding  the  five  thousand,  goes 
up  to  the  feast  in  Jerusalem  (5  :  1)  where  his  life  is  in 
danger  (5:  16)  which  causes  him  to  return  to  Galilee 
again  (7:1).  Such  a  rearrangement,  also,  puts  all  the 
visits  to  Jerusalem,  except  that  of  2  :  13,  in  the  last 
year  of  his  life,  after  the  close  of  his  popular  ministry 
in  Judea.  This,  too,  seems  probable.  While  the 
work  in  Galilee  still  promised  success,  there  was  no 
reason  for  his  stirring  up  the  hostility  of  the  rulers  by 
appearing  in  Jerusalem;  but  when  the  Galilean  work 
had  failed,  and  the  shadow  of  the  cross  grew  more 
evident,  Jesus  seems  deliberately  to  have  sought  every 
opportunity  to  place  his  claims  clearly  before  the  San- 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       167 

hedrin,  that  they  might  act  upon  them  with  full  knowl- 
edge. The  unnamed  feast  of  5  :  1,  if  the  two  chapters 
are  transposed,  would  naturally  be  Pentecost. 

Another  passage  that  seems  out  of  place  is  7  :  15-24. 
If  it  is  placed  directly  after  chapter  5,  it  forms  a  fit  con- 
clusion to  it.  The  reference  to  the  miracle  of  Bethesda 
as  if  it  had  just  been  performed  (7  :  23) ;  the  astonish- 
ment at  his  rabbinical  teaching  as  if  this  was  his  first 
display  of  it  (7  :  15);  the  ignorance  of  the  multitude 
that  his  life  was  threatened  (7  :  20),  though  at  the 
Feast  of  the  Tabernacles  this  was  well-known  (7  :  25); 
and  the  references  to  Moses  and  the  law  (c/.  5  :  45-47) 
— all  suit  the  earlier  feast  far  better  than  tabernacles. 
A  simple  transposition  of  this  passage  and  7  :  1-14 
removes  many  dilBficulties. 

Still  again,  chapter  14  with  its  closing  words,  "  Arise, 
let  us  go  hence,"  seems  properly  to  conclude  the  ad- 
dress after  the  Last  Supper.  It  will  have  that  position 
if  we  put  chapters  15-16  immediately  after  the  pref- 
atory statement  of  13:31;  and  we  shall  no  longer  have 
the  contradiction  between  16  :  5  and  13  :  36.  The 
change  will  also  make  the  opening  words  of  chapter 
15  follow  directly  after  Judas'  departure  to  which 
they  seem  to  refer;  e.  g.,  15  :  6. 

Further  rearrangements  have  been  suggested,  some 
of  which  are  worth  considering.  The  main  diflSculty, 
however,  with  all  such  changes  in  the  order  of  the  text, 
is  to  explain  how  the  disarrangements  could  have 
arisen.    It  has  been  suggested  that  the  leaves  of  the 


168    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

original  papyrus  roll  became  unglued  and  were  fast- 
ened together  again,  but  not  always  in  their  original 
order,  and  in  proof  of  this  it  is  pointed  out  that,  if  we 
take  a  page  containing  a  certain  number  of  words  as 
the  unit,  these  dislocated  passages  all  prove  to  be  multi- 
ples of  that  unit.  It  is  not  easy  to  accept  this  explana- 
tion, but  nothing  better  has  been  offered. 

The  theme  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  self-revelation 
of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (20  :  31).  Its 
main  divisions  are: 

Prologue  and  Preliminary  Testimony,  1  :  1-2  :  12. 
The  Self-revelation  to  the  World,  2  :  13-12  ;  50. 
By  the  Ministries  of  Jesus. 

In  Judea,  2  :  13-3  :  36. 

In  Samaria,  4  :  1-42. 

In  Galilee,  4  :  43-54;   6  :  1-71. 
By  the  Conflicts  at  the  Feasts. 

At  Pentecost,  5  :  1-47;   7  :  15-24. 

At  Tabernacles,  7  :  1-14,  25-52. 

At  Dedication,  9  :  1-10  :  39. 
By  the  Last  Public  Labors. 

In  Perea  and  Bethany,  10  :  40-12  :  11 

In  Jerusalem,  12  :  12-50. 

The  Self-revelation  to  the  Disciples,  13 :  1-20  :  31. 

By  the  Last  Supper,  13  : 1-17  :  26. 

By  the  Last  Sufferings,  18  :  1-19  :  42. 

By  the  Resurrection,  20  :  1-31. 
Appendix,  21  :  1-23. 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  GOSPEL       169 

If  the  style  is  the  man,  that  of  John  merits  special 
attention.  Gloag  says  of  it,  "There  is  a  remarkable 
simpUcity  in  the  style  of  John.  His  vocabulary  is 
small;  the  same  words — love,  life,  light,  the  world — 
continually  occur  and  are  interwoven  together.  The 
sentences  are  simple  in  construction,  being  in  the  terse 
aphoristic  Hebrew  manner,  and  not  in  the  involved 
structure  conformable  to  the  genius  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, and  illustrated  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Con- 
necting particles  are  also  very  sparingly  employed. 
Hence,  of  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  none 
are  so  easily  read  and  translated  as  those  of  John. 
There  is  also  a  peculiar  kind  of  repetition.  The  same 
thoughts,  or,  at  least,  thoughts  with  little  variation  of 
meaning,  are  repeated  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  Often 
the  same  idea  is  expressed  both  positively  and  nega- 
tively. .  .  .  With  the  simplicity  in  style  and  diction, 
and  even  in  the  thoughts  and  sentiments  of  the  Johan- 
nine  writings,  there  is  combined  a  real  profundity 
which  no  human  intellect  can  fathom.  The  Fourth 
Gospel  especially  is  remarkable  for  its  depth;  it  has 
been  well  called  by  the  fathers  *  the  spiritual  gospel,' 
as  compared  with  the  synoptical  gospels.  It  opens 
the  deepest  recesses  of  the  spiritual  life;  it  discloses  the 
very  heart  of  the  incarnate  God;  it  reveals  the  divine 
human  nature  which  Christ  possessed;  it  lifts  up  the 
veil,  and  lets  us  see  into  the  holy  of  holies.  The  two 
preponderating  ideas  are  life  and  light;    and  these 


170    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

are  embodied  in  Christ:  he  is  at  once  the  life  and  the 
light  of  man,  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life,  and  the 
essence  of  all  spiritual  truth,  the  sun  of  the  moral 
universe.  The  writings  of  John  may  be  compared  to  a 
well  of  water,  so  clear  and  sparkling  that  at  first  one 
thinks  he  sees  to  the  bottom;  but  that  well  is  so  deep, 
that  the  more  one  gazes  into  it,  the  deeper  does  it  ap- 
pear, and  no  one  has  yet  been  able  to  fathom  it. 

"The  interpretation  of  the  Johannine  writings  is 
peculiarly  difficult  by  reason  of  their  profundity. 
Hence,  one  essential  element  of  interpretation  is  sym- 
pathy with  John's  spirit.  It  is  only  a  Johannine  Chris- 
tian who  can  truly  understand  and  interpret  John's 
writings.  It  requires  such  a  spiritual  insight,  as  is 
rarely  possessed,  fully  to  fathom  the  deep  things  con- 
tained in  them.  Hence,  a  religious  and  spiritual  nature 
is  essential;  we  must  have  largely  imbibed  the  spirit 
of  Jesus  Christ  before  we  can  enter  into  the  spirit  of 
John's  writings.  This  well  is  deep;  and,  if  destitute  of 
a  spiritual  mind,  we  have  nothing  wherewith  to  draw. 
As  Origen  strikingly  puts  it:  *The  gospels  are  the  first- 
fruits  of  all  the  Scriptures,  and  the  first-fruits  of  the 
gospels  is  that  of  John,  into  whose  meaning  no  man  can 
enter  unless  he  too  has  reclined  upon  the  bosom  of 
Jesus.'" 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

All  the  topics  we  have  considered  bear  directly  or  in- 
directly upon  the  great  question  whether  the  gospels 
are  trustworthy;  and  the  main  arguments  for  or 
against  an  affirmative  answer  are  drawn  from  them. 
But  some  additional  arguments  deserve  a  place  in  a 
special  chapter. 

The  story  of  Jesus,  as  given  in  the  gospels,  must  be 
treated  as  either  fact  or  fiction.  Few  if  any  scholars 
would  pronounce  it  wholly  fictitious.  They  would 
agree  that  probably  there  was  such  a  person  as  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  an  earnest,  high-minded  Galilean  peasant, 
who  gathered  a  little  band  of  disciples  to  whom  he 
taught  some  simple  but  noble  truths  about  God  and 
man,  and  who  finally  was  put  to  death  by  the  Roman 
authorities.  But  they  would  no  more  treat  the  gospel 
story  as  sober  history  of  this  peasant  than  they  would 
treat  Tennyson's  "  Idylls  of  the  King"  as  sober  history 
of  the  British  King  Arthur.  In  their  opinion  it  is 
mostly  fiction.  If  they  are  right  the  problem  at  once 
arises,  Who  invented  it?  For  we  cannot  fairly  refuse 
to  accept  the  story  as  fact  unless  we  can  find  some  satis- 
factory explanation  of  how  it  originated,  if  a  fiction. 

171 


172    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  deists  of  the  eighteenth  century  declared  that 
the  apostles  deliberately  lied  about  Jesus.  But  no 
one  to-day  accepts  that  explanation;  it  is  too  evidently 
absurd.  The  apostles  by  such  fraud  could  gain  only 
hardship,  suffering,  loss,  and  death;  a  man  does  not 
spend  his  life  in  proclaiming  what  he  knows  to  be  a  lie 
for  these  rewards.  The  story  they  told  was  in  many 
ways  not  to  their  own  credit,  for  it  recorded  their  stu- 
pidity, selfishness,  cowardice;  if  they  were  adepts  at 
invention,  they  certainly  would  have  made  their  con- 
duct appear  more  praiseworthy.  Moreover,  the  re- 
ligion which  they  preached  with  all  earnestness  had  in 
it  nothing  but  denunciation  for  deception,  and  eternal 
doom  for  liars;  how  could  they  proclaim  it  when  con- 
science told  them  that  they  themselves  were  under  its 
condemnation?  An  apostolic  band  of  fiction-makers 
and  mongers  is  inconceivable. 

The  theory  usually  advanced  to-day  is  that  the  gos- 
pel story  was  a  product  of  the  reverent  and  practically 
unconscious  invention  of  the  early  church.  To  the 
simple  story  of  Jesus,  as  originally  told  by  the  apostles, 
constant  additions  were  made  by  ignorant,  enthusiastic, 
imaginative  Christians  of  the  first  century.  Because 
they  accepted  him  as  Messiah,  they  believed  he  must  in 
all  respects  have  fulfilled  the  Messianic  prophecies, 
and  performed  the  mighty  works  expected  of  a  Mes- 
siah. Because  he  was  the  hero  of  their  faith,  they  gave 
to  him  the  legendary  greatness  which  increasingly 


THE  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS    173 

gathers  about  a  hero.  Around  his  head  they  placed  a 
halo  of  miracles;  in  his  lips  they  put  discourses  of 
supernatural  self-assertion  and  wisdom.  It  was  not 
done  deliberately  and  with  intent  to  deceive;  they  hon- 
estly believed  all  that  they  delighted  to  proclaim — it 
was  the  self-deception  of  love. 

Against  this  theory  we  may  bring  the  objection  that 
so  long  as  the  apostles  and  other  companions  of  Jesus 
were  alive,  they  would  be  witnesses  to  the  real  facts, 
and  hindrances  to  the  growth  of  fiction.  Indeed, 
Strauss  and  the  other  framers  of  the  theory  started  with 
the  supposition  that  the  gospels  were  written  well  on  in 
the  second  century,  and  set  forth  the  thought  of  the 
church  about  Jesus  a  hundred  years  after  his  death. 
But,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  agreed  to-day  that  certainly 
three  of  our  gospels  were  written  in  the  first  century — 
and  at  least  one  of  them  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the 
first  century — before  the  original  witnesses  had  passed 
away,  and  when  there  had  been  little  time  for  the  de- 
velopment of  myths  and  legends.  Nevertheless,  we 
must  remember  that  among  an  ignorant,  enthusiastic 
body  of  followers,  myths  and  legends  do  develop 
quickly  and  persist  most  stubbornly.  The  lives  of 
saints  and  founders  of  sects — heathen  or  Christian, 
ancient,  mediaeval  or  modern — are  usually  embellished 
with  details  that  will  not  endure  historical  criticism. 
And  the  mere  fact  that  these  lives  were  written  by  im- 
mediate disciples  does  not  guarantee  their  accuracy. 


174    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Accordingly,  in  considering  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
gospels,  It  Is  not  enough  to  show  that  we  have  them  In 
their  original  form,  that  their  date  Is  In  the  first  cen- 
tury, and  that  their  sources  are  the  recollections  of  the 
apostles.  We  must  also  consider  the  qualifications  of 
the  apostles  as  witnesses,  and  the  character  of  the  story 
they  tell. 

The  fact  that  the  gospel  narrative  is  full  of  the 
miraculous  does  not  justify  an  Immediate  rejection  of 
it  as  evidently  false,  or  a  contemptuous  judgment  of 
the  apostles  as  superstitious,  credulous  witnesses. 
This  Is  the  treatment  often  given  by  men  who  deny 
miracles;  but  It  is  most  unfair.  The  question  of 
miracles  Is  a  comprehensive  one,  starting  with  the 
philosophical  problem  of  the  existence  of  a  personal 
God  and  his  relations  to  the  universe,  passing  next  to 
the  religious  problem  of  the  attitude  of  God  toward 
man  and  the  function  of  miracles  in  his  self-revelation, 
and  ending  with  the  historical  problem  of  the  sufficiency 
of  evidence  that  certain  miracles  were  actually  per- 
formed. If  the  student  of  the  gospels  Is  fully  convinced 
that  there  Is  no  personal  God,  or  that  the  universe  Is 
independent  of  his  will,  or  that  he  does  not  wish  man 
to  know  him,  or  that  sufficient  knowledge  of  God  is 
given  in  natural  ways,  then  the  miraculous  is  ruled  out, 
and  any  report  of  It  is  absurd.  In  other  words,  the 
atheist  or  the  deist  is  justified  in  affirming  that  miracles 
do  not  happen.     But  the  agnostic,  and  still  less  the 


THE  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS    175 

theist,  has  little  right  to  make  that  aflfirmation  until  he 
has  carefully  examined  the  historical  evidence  that 
miracles  have  taken  place.  And  no  evidence  is  so  im- 
portant and  worthy  of  serious  consideration  as  that 
presented  in  the  gospels;  for  no  miracles  are  in  such 
evident  harmony  with  the  noblest  conceptions  of  God 
and  man  as  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

The  gospel  story  comes  to  us  either  directly  or  almost 
at  first-hand  from  the  aposdes.  This  holds  true  what- 
ever may  be  the  solution  of  the  synoptic  and  Johan- 
nine  problems.  The  apostles  were  not  the  only  per- 
sons who  accompanied  Jesus  during  at  least  a  part 
of  his  ministry  (Acts  1  :  21-26);  but  they  were  the  men 
who  spoke  with  authority  concerning  it,  and  who 
considered  witness-bearing  to  be  one  of  their  special 
duties.  Were  they  trustworthy  witnesses  ?  They  cer- 
tainly had  abundant  opportunity  to  learn  the  facts 
which  they  proclaimed;  no  one  disputes  this.  And, 
as  we  have  already  noted,  their  character  and  lack 
of  inducement  to  deceive  makes  us  believe  that  they 
w^ould  report  the  facts  exactly  as  they  had  learned 
them.  But  were  they  competent  witnesses;  or  did 
their  ignorance  and  prejudices  and  enthusiasm  make 
them,  as  some  critics  aflfirm,  wholly  incompetent? 

Before  answering  this,  notice  just  what  we  ask  of  the 
apostles.  We  do  not  demand  that  they  deal  with  the 
miracles  as  a  twentieth-century  scientist  would,  and 
give   us   their  verdict   concerning   the   supernatural. 


176    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Nor  do  we  demand  that  they  interpret  Christ's  teach- 
ing as  a  twentieth-century  theologian  would,  and  give 
us  their  opinion  of  its  meaning.  All  we  ask  of  them  is 
a  correct  statement  of  just  what  Jesus  did  do  and  say; 
then  we  ourselves  can  supply  the  scientific  explana- 
tion or  the  theological  interpretation.  Did  they  see 
five  thousand  men  fed  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes? 
Did  they  hear  Jesus  say,  "  I  am  the  light  of  the  world  "  ? 
Or  were  they  so  incompetent  to  see  and  hear  that  we 
cannot  accept  their  testimony,  though  they  honestly 
try  to  tell  the  truth  ?  Would  men  like  the  apostles  be 
believed  in  their  statement  of  facts  if  on  the  witness 
stand  to-day? 

The  answer  to  this  is  well  put  by  Dr.  Gore :  "  The 
apostles  will  take  very  high  rank  among  the  world's 
witnesses.  As  represented  in  the  gospels  they  were 
men  not  of  the  poorest  but  of  the  more  independent 
trading  class;  simple,  literal-minded  men;  not  super- 
stitious and  still  less  romantic;  free  from  all  traces  of 
morbidness;  slow  of  belief  through  lack  of  imagination; 
as  individuals  strikingly  different  in  character,  so  as 
not  easily  to  be  led  in  the  same  way;  with  the  ex- 
ception of  St.  John  not  well  adapted  to  be  theolo- 
gians, and  none  of  them  (like  St.  Paul)  controversial 
theologians;  but  singularly  well  qualified  as  witnesses. 
They  were  qualified  as  witnesses  because,  free  from 
all  preoccupation  with  ideas  and  systems,  they  were 
plain  men  who  could  receive  the  impress  of  facts;  who 


THE  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS     177 

could  tell  a  simple,  plain  tale,  and  show  by  their  lives 
how  much  they  believed  it.  And  they  were  trained 
to  be  witnesses.  Jesus  Christ  intended  his  gospel  to 
rest  on  facts;  and,  in  correspondence  with  this  inten- 
tion, the  whole  stress  in  the  apostolic  church  was  laid 
on  witness.  The  first  thing  the  church  had  to  do, 
before  it  developed  its  theology,  was  to  tell  its  tale 
of  fact.  *We  are  witnesses  of  these  things'"  ("The 
Incarnation,"  81/.). 

The  presence  of  errors  and  discrepancies  in  the  gos- 
pels would  not  overthrow  our  belief  that  the  apostles 
were  trustw^orthy  witnesses  if  we  saw  that  these  arose 
from  (a)  Hmitations  in  knowledge  common  to  their  land 
and  century,  e,  g.,  the  belief  that  certain  diseases  were 
caused  by  demons — provided,  of  course,  that  demonia- 
cal possession  is  proved  an  error;  or  (b)  misunder- 
standings on  the  part  of  the  apostles  or  their  reporters 
of  statements  evidently  open  to  misunderstanding, 
e.  g.y  Christ's  teaching  about  his  second  coming;  or  (c) 
the  natural  variations  of  different  persons  telling  the 
same  story,  e.  g.,  the  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind 
at  Jericho.  Nor  are  the  gospels  discredited  by  the 
fact  that  each  writer  has  his  own  way  of  treating  the 
subject.  This  is  true  of  all  historians;  the  personal 
equation  must  be  taken  into  account  in  estimating  the 
value  of  their  testimony.  In  the  case  of  the  evange- 
lists, however,  we  are  surprised  to  find  how  little 
change  that  equation  makes.     Their  reverence  for  the 


178    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

truth  kept  them  from  yielding  to  personal  preferences 
and  prejudices  in  reporting  the  facts. 

The  frequent  allusions  in  other  New  Testament 
books  to  facts  about  Christ  furnishes  another  test  of 
the  trustworthiness  of  the  evangelists  and  their  sources. 
We  have  already  noticed  (p.  13)  that  from  such  un- 
disputed works  as  Paul's  four  great  epistles  we  can 
gather  enough  to  make  a  valuable  outline  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  and  that  this  outline  agrees  completely  with  the 
record  given  in  the  gospels.  Now,  unless  the  story 
thus  outlined  in  Paul's  letters  is  true,  we  must  suppose 
that,  less  than  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  the 
real  facts  had  been  so  completely  lost  that  a  scholar 
most  eager  and  competent  to  recover  them  could  not 
do  so;  and  also  that  a  fictitious  story  had  been  so  cun- 
ningly framed  as  to  deceive  the  keenest  mind  of  the 
apostolic  age.  But  if  we  accept  the  testimony  of 
Paul  as  trustworthy,  we  have  new  and  independent 
confirmation  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  witnesses 
whose  testimony  is  recorded  in  the  Four  Gospels. 

A  much  stronger  objection  to  the  theory  that  the 
story  of  Jesus  is  fiction  reverently  framed  by  the  early 
church,  lies  in  the  character  it  portrays.  The  gospels 
are  four  sketches  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  made  at  different 
times  and  for  different  purposes.  The  first  three  have 
most  material  in  common,  yet  each  has  its  independent 
contribution;  the  fourth  is  almost  entirely  indepen- 
dent and  supplementary.     They  may  be  compared  to 


THE  TRUSTWORTHLNESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS     179 

four  pictures  painted  by  different  artists  from  different 
stand-points.  Notice  first,  that  all  are  pictures  of  the 
same  person.  Some  critics  dispute  this,  declaring  that 
the  Jesus  of  the  synoptics  is  not  the  same  as  the  Jesus 
of  John;  but  the  Christian  Church  throughout  the 
centuries  has  never  perceived  any  difference  save  that 
John  portrays  more  clearly  the  inner,  divine  nature  of 
the  Lord.  The  pictures  are  composed  of  a  multitude 
of  details,  each  adding  its  touch  to  the  portrait;  yet 
all  are  in  perfect  harmony,  so  that  at  no  point  in  the 
story  can  we  pronounce  an  act  or  saying  of  Jesus  to  be 
out  of  keeping  with  his  character.  Captious  critics 
have  tried  to  do  this,  but  have  not  succeeded. 

The  character  of  Jesus,  as  thus  portrayed  in  the 
gospels,  is  certainly  most  remarkable.  It  is  symmetri- 
cal, sinless,  unique:  it  is  the  noblest  ever  placed  be- 
fore human  contemplation:  it  is  a  perfect  blending  of 
the  human  and  the  divine.  The  evangelists  do  not 
try  to  impress  this  upon  us  by  laudatory  epithets: 
they  do  not  even  state  it  in  abstract  form:  they  simply 
give  us  a  plain  narrative  of  deeds  and  words,  and  leave 
us  to  form  our  own  opinion  of  Jesus.  What  opinion 
has  been  formed,  even  by  men  who  reject  the  miracles, 
is  well  stated  by  Lecky  in  words  often  quoted:  "It 
was  reserved  for  Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an 
ideal  character,  which  through  all  the  changes  of  eigh- 
teen centuries  has  inspired  the  hearts  of  men  with  an 
impassioned  love;   has  shown  itself  capable  of  acting 


180    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

on  all  nations,  ages,  temperaments,  and  conditions; 
has  been  not  only  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the 
strongest  incentive  to  its  practice;  and  has  exercised  so 
deep  an  influence  that  it  may  truly  be  said  that  the 
simple  record  of  three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done 
more  to  regenerate  and  soften  mankind  than  all  the 
disquisitions  of  philosophers,  and  all  the  exhortations 
of  moralists.  This  has  indeed  been  the  well-spring  of 
whatever  is  best  and  purest  in  the  Christian  life" 
("History  of  European  Morals,"  2  :  8). 

If  the  story  of  Jesus  is  fiction,  it  Is  the  most  wonderr 
ful  fiction  in  all  Hterature.  "The  inventor  of  it,"  as 
Rousseau  declared,  "  would  be  more  astonishing  than 
the  hero."  Shakespeare  is  not  worthy  of  comparison 
with  the  unknown  man  who  had  the  genius  to  imagine 
such  a  character  as  that  of  Jesus  and  such  a  life  as  he 
lived.  "  It  takes  a  Newton  to  forge  a  Newton.  What 
man  could  have  fabricated  a  Jesus?  None  but  a 
Jesus,"  said  Theodore  Parker.  But  according  to  the 
theory  of  sceptics  the  transformation  of  the  historical 
figure  of  a  simple  Galilean  reformer  into  the  wonder- 
ful God-man,  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  the  world,  was 
accomplished  not  by  the  genius  of  any  one  man,  but 
by  the  collective  thought  of  the  early  church  dwelling 
reverently  upon  its  Master.  If  we  accept  this  theory 
we  must  beHeve: 

(1)  That  a  body  of  ignorant,  self-deluded  men  and 
women  of  the  first  century,  some  of  them  reared  in  the 


THE  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS     181 

narrowness  of  Juddism  and  others  in  the  low  morality 
of  heathendom,  invented  an  ideal  character  free  from 
all  local,  racial,  and  temporal  limitations,  harmoniously 
combining  compassion  with  justice,  humility  with 
conscious  greatness,  the  human  with  the  divine — a 
character  which  the  world  has  ever  since  pronounced 
unique  and  unsurpassable; 

(2)  That  they  imagined  a  series  of  deeds  by  which 
such  a  character  found  remarkable  and  always  ap- 
propriate expression,  including  among  them  miracles 
so  full  of  grace  and  meaning  that  even  a  sceptic  con- 
fesses "the  halo  of  the  miracles  is  worthy  of  the 
figure"  (Goldwin  Smith); 

(3)  That  they  put  into  the  mouth  of  this  fictitious 
character  the  purest  and  sublimest  teachings,  free 
from  the  fanaticism  that  fired  their  own  souls,  and  in 
strong  contrast  to  the  religious  ideas  they  had  been 
taught  in  childhood — teachings  whose  rich  contents  the 
world  has  by  no  means  yet  exhausted;   and 

(4)  That  they  did  all  this  by  no  deliberate  co-opera- 
tion or  conscious  effort,  but  simply  by  allowing  their 
imaginations  to  have  free  play,  and  offering  the  various 
results  as  contributions  to  the  gospel  story. 

Such  a  theory,  when  we  realize  what  it  involves,  is 
evidently  incredible.  We  could  more  easily  believe 
that  the  house-painters  in  some  obscure  town  trans- 
formed a  tavern  sign  into  a  rival  of  the  Sistine  Madonna 
by  adding  touches  of  paint  from  time  to  time  as  they 


182    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

passed  on  their  way  to  work.  It  would  never  have 
been  seriously  advocated  had  not  those  writers  who 
pronounce  the  gospel  story  a  fiction  felt,  with  good 
reason,  that  they  must  in  some  way  explain  the  origin  of 
the  fiction,  and  that  the  theory  of  deliberate  invention 
by  the  apostles  or  evangelists  was  even  more  incredible. 
If  we  want  to  know  what  the  imagination  of  the  early 
church  would  probably  have  produced,  we  may  look 
at  such  a  book  as  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  which  is  a 
fiction  of  the  second  century.  It  is  an  attempt  to  fill  in 
by  imagination  the  period  of  Jesus'  history  between 
his  infancy  and  his  visit  to  the  temple  at  the  age  of 
twelve — a  period  that  naturally  arouses  curiosity,  but 
is  passed  over  in  the  gospels  with  a  single  verse.  It 
seems  to  have  been  popular  in  its  day,  and  to  have 
aroused  no  objections,  but  to  us  it  is  a  monstrous  pro- 
duction. The  child  Jesus  works  miracles,  of  which 
some  are  absurd,  as  carrying  water  in  his  cloak,  while 
others  are  vindictive,  as  striking  blind  those  who  ac- 
cuse him.  He  is  disrespectful  to  his  teachers,  angry 
with  his  parents  and  companions,  ready  to  injure  or 
kill  by  a  curse  any  who  offend  him.  The  whole  village 
is  in  constant  fear  of  him,  and  with  good  reason  they 
say  to  Joseph:  "Since  thou  hast  such  a  child,  either 
leave  the  village  or  teach  him  to  bless  and  not  to  curse ; 
for  he  is  killing  our  children."  There  are  other  apoc- 
ryphal gospels  of  the  same  century  or  later;  but  they 
all  are  on  the  same  low  level.     Worthless  in  other  re- 


THE  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS     183 

spects,  these  gospels  are  valuable  as  a  revelation  of  the 
historical  imagination  possessed  by  the  early  church; 
and  they  render  still  more  improbable  the  theory  that 
the  story  recorded  by  the  evangelists  was  the  product 
of  that  imagination.  Though  John  Stuart  Mill  re- 
jects all  miracles  and  pronounces  much  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  to  be  "poor  stuff,"  he  sums  up  the  situation 
correctly  when  he  says,  "It  is  of  no  use  to  say  that 
Christ,  as  exhibited  in  the  gospels,  is  not  historical, 
and  that  we  know  not  how  much  of  what  is  admirable 
has  been  superadded  by  the  tradition  of  his  followers. 
.  .  .  Who  among  his  disciples  or  among  their  pros- 
elytes was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings  ascribed 
to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  life  and  character  revealed 
in  the  gospels?"  ("Three  Essays  on  Religion,"  253). 
Or,  as  van  Dyke  puts  it,  "  He  is  such  a  person  as  men 
could  not  have  imagined  if  they  would,  and  would  not 
have  imagined  if  they  could"  ("Gospel  for  an  Age  of 
Doubt,"  59). 

If  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  the  gospel  story  as 
fiction,  we  must  take  it  as  history,  and  treat  it  accord- 
ingly. This  does  not  mean  that  we  must  accept  all  its 
details  without  question,  refusing  to  admit  the  possi- 
bility of  error;  even  the  most  extreme  believer  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible  would  not  take  such  a  position. 
If  the  gospels  are  historical  documents,  they  must  be 
submitted  to  historical  criticism;   the  demand  is  just. 


184    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  in  the  present  day  it  cannot  be  denied.  In  fact,  in 
proportion  as  we  are  persuaded  that  they  are  trust- 
worthy, we  are  glad  to  have  them  submitted  to  the  most 
searching  tests — provided  the  tests  are  fair  and  honestly 
applied.  All  that  we  ask  is  that  the  story  of  Jesus  be 
not  contemptuously  waived  aside  as  preposterous  fic- 
tion, but  be  treated  with  respect  and  serious  considera- 
tion. And  if  thus  treated,  we  can  wait  with  confidence 
the  verdict  of  the  honest  seeker  after  truth. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  FOR  A  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Practically  all  that  we  know  concerning  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  what  is  recorded  in  the  four  canonical  gospels. 
There  is  bare  mention  of  him  in  heathen  writers  and 
possibly  in  Josephus:  some  incidents  or  sayings  of 
doubtful  genuineness  are  found  in  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  and  the  Apocryphal  Gospels:  a  very  few  but 
precious  items  may  be  gleaned  from  the  Book  of  Acts 
and  the  New  Testament  Epistles;  but  nowhere  is  there 
anything  that  really  adds  to  the  story  of  the  four 
evangelists  or  takes  away  from  it.  Some  of  the  Lives 
of  Christ  fill  bulky  volumes,  but  they  reach  their  great 
size  either  by  describing  minutely  the  environment 
in  which  Jesus  lived  and  worked,  or  by  discussing  at 
wearisome  length  the  statements  in  the  gospels.  They 
may  make  the  gospel  narrative  more  intelligible:  they 
cannot  bring  any  further  facts  to  supplement  it.  And 
not  infrequently  they  are  open  to  the  criticism  that  we 
almost  lose  sight  of  the  central  figure  in  the  mass  of  ir- 
relevant details  they  heap  about  him. 

The  great  question,  then,  concerning  any  Life  of 

Jesus  is,  What  is  the  author's  attitude  toward  the  gos' 

185 


186    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

pels?  How  far  does  he  consider  them  to  be  trust- 
worthy history?  And  upon  examination  it  will  be 
found  that  he  has  adopted  one  of  three  possible  opin- 
ions: 

(1)  All  four  gospels  are  trustworthy.  They  give 
the  testimony  of  honest  men  and  competent  witnesses. 
There  may  be  minor  errors  or  discrepancies,  such  as 
are  found  in  the  best  of  testimony,  but  as  a  whole 
their  record  is  true  and  harmonious. 

(2)  The  synoptics  are  trustworthy,  but  John  is  not. 
Its  picture  of  Jesus  and  its  record  of  his  words  must  be 
taken  with  qualifications  or  rejected  entirely  as  being 
late  in  origin  and  deeply  influenced  by  theological  ideas 
of  the  second  century.  In  John  we  see  Jesus,  not  as 
he  really  was,  but  as  a  later  age  thought  he  must  have 
been;  and,  therefore,  the  actual  life  of  Jesus  must  be 
constructed  from  the  synoptics  alone  or  with  very  cau- 
tious use  of  John. 

(3)  No  one  of  the  gospels  is  trustworthy.  Either 
they  were  written  too  late  for  actual  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  or  they  are  full  of  natural  misconceptions  and 
errors.  All  we  can  do  is  to  take  their  statements  as  the 
basis  of  our  work,  and  alter  and  reconstruct  according 
to  our  best  judgment.  We  may  end  by  accepting  the 
larger  part  of  their  narrative,  or  by  going  as  far  in 
scepticism  as  Schmiedel,  who  views  with  suspicion  all 
except  nine  brief  passages  emphasizing  the  human 
weakness  and  ignorance  of  Jesus,  and  pronounces  these 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  187 

nine  "  the  foundation  pillars  for  a  really  scientific  life 
of  Jesus"  (see  his  article  on  the  gospels  in  Encyc. 
Biblica) ;  but  in  any  case  our  attitude  toward  the  gos- 
pels is  one  of  hostile  criticism. 

Logically  a  fourth  position  is  possible,  viz.,  that 
John  is  trustworthy,  while  the  synoptics  are  not.  But 
though  certain  critics  give  John  the  foremost  place  for 
accuracy,  and  would  follow  it  rather  than  the  synop- 
tics in  setthng  a  vexed  question,  e.  g.,  the  time  of  the 
Last  Supper,  I  know  of  none  who  accepts  John  but 
rejects  the  synoptics.  The  reason  is  evident— the 
problems  presented  in  the  synoptics  are  of  the  same 
character  as  those  in  John,  but  by  no  means  as  difficult; 
and  the  student  who  finds  a  solution  for  the  latter  is  not 
troubled  by  the  former. 

A  writer's  attitude  toward  the  gospels  will  affect  his 
work  at  every  point.  For  example,  if  he  adopts  the 
second  of  the  three  positions,  it  will  influence  his  con- 
elusion  not  only  as  to  such  a  vitally  important  matter 
as  the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  is  most  clearly  pro- 
claimed in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  but  also  as  to  the 
comparatively  unimportant  question  of  the  length  of 
Christ's  public  ministry.  For,  while  John  distinctly 
mentions  three  Passovers,  so  that  the  ministry  could 
not  have  been  less  than  two  years,  the  synoptics  men- 
tion only  the  Passover  of  the  crucifixion;  and  the 
writer  who  follows  them  alone  is  apt  to  put  the  whole 
ministry  into  the  space  of  one  year.     It  is  necessary, 


188    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

therefore,  before  accepting  a  writer's  conclusions,  even 
upon  matters  of  chronology,  to  ascertain  his  position 
concerning  the  gospels.  Usually  he  begins  his  work 
by  definitely  stating  and  defending  it;  and  fairness 
to  the  reader  would  demand  that  he  should  always 
do  so. 

Evidently  a  critic's  philosophical  and  practical  atti- 
tude toward  the  supernatural  will  largely  shape  his 
opinion  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  gospels.  As  Dr. 
Bruce  says,  "  It  is  the  miraculous  element  in  the  gos- 
pels that  chiefly  raises  the  question  as  to  their  historical 
trustworthiness.  Eliminate  that  element,  and  hardly 
a  doubt  would  remain;  the  residuary  words  and  deeds 
of  Jesus  would  be  welcomed  as  a  proof  that  in  Judea 
there  once  lived  a  sage  and  philanthropist  of  unpar- 
alleled wisdom  and  goodness."  In  regard  to  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  we  may  divide  writers  into  a  left 
and  a  right  group,  and  also  make  a  subdivision  of  each 
group,  as  follows: 

Left. — Those  who  deny  all  miracles,  and  who  there- 
fore reject  the  gospel  record  of  them  as  untrustworthy, 
the  product  of  a  credulous,  unscientific  age.  They 
may  explain  the  recorded  miracles  as  myths  and  leg- 
ends that  sprang  up  after  the  death  of  Jesus  and  gained 
ready  credence  among  the  early  Christians,  or  else 
as  events  for  which  a  natural  explanation  may  be 
found,  and  parables  and  sayings  of  Jesus  that  were 
misunderstood    and    distorted    into    miracles.     But, 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  189 

whatever  the  explanation,  they  insist  that  because 
miracles  do  not  happen,  the  account  must  be  untrue. 

Lejt  Centre. — Those  who  deny  all  miracles,  but  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  possessed  some  power  or  knowledge 
by  which  he  could  perform  deeds  beyond  the  ability 
of  other  men.  Possibly  the  psychic  power  which  he 
exerted  is  latent  in  all  of  us,  or  the  knowledge  he 
possessed  may  some  day  be  the  common  property  of 
mankind,  but  up  to  the  present  time  his  wonderful 
deeds  are  unparalleled.  Nevertheless,  they  were  not 
supernatural;  and  whatever  is  related  concerning  them, 
that  is  evidently  supernatural,  must  be  rejected  as 
unhistorical. 

Right  Centre. — Those  who  admit  that  Jesus  per- 
formed real  miracles — acts  beyond  not  only  present 
human  power  but  all  human  power.  Nevertheless, 
either  from  an  unconscious  aversion  to  the  miraculous 
or  from  a  desire  to  propitiate  sceptics,  these  writers 
seek  to  diminish  the  number  of  his  miracles  as  much 
as  possible,  by  explaining  away  some  of  them  as 
natural  events  or  misreported  parables,  and  question- 
ing the  reliability  of  the  report  concerning  others. 

Right. — Those  persons  who  recognize  without  re- 
serve the  power  of  Christ  to  work  miracles.  They  may 
not  accept  all  the  miracles  in  the  gospel  record,  but 
they  do  not  question  them  simply  because  they  are 
miracles.  For  example,  certain  writers  of  this  group 
decline  to  believe  that  saints  came  forth  from  the  grave 


190    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  went  into  Jerusalem  after  Christ's  resurrection; 
but  they  do  this,  not  because  the  story  involves  a 
miracle,  but  because  it  is  found  only  in  Matthew,  and 
is  of  a  very  different  character  from  the  other  miracles, 
and  seems  like  a  later  invention  arising  from  a  mis- 
understanding of  such  teachings  as  I  Cor.  15  :  20  and 
John  5  :  25.  The  supernatural  in  the  gospel  story  is 
not  a  stumbling  block  to  these  writers,  for  it  harmon- 
izes with  their  conception  of  God  and  his  attitude  tow- 
ard man. 

It  is  impossible  to  deny  miracles  and  yet  accept  the 
gospels  as  the  report  of  honest  eye-witnesses.  Paulus 
stands  as  a  proof  of  this.  In  1828  he  wrote  a  book 
striving  to  show  that  the  gospel  story  is  from  the  apos- 
tles and  is  true,  though  none  of  the  events  in  it  were 
really  supernatural.  For  every  apparent  miracle  he 
found  a  natural  explanation,  "  though  the  explanation 
is  often  more  remarkable  than  the  miracle."  In  some 
instances  he  thinks  we  read  a  miracle  into  the  story, 
when  the  apostles  themselves  did  not  intend  to  relate 
one;  e.  g.,  the  fish  which  Peter  caught  to  pay  the  temple 
tax  did  not  have  a  stater  in  its  mouth,  but  was  sold  by 
him  for  that  sum.  In  other  instances  he  thinks  the 
apostles  honestly  mistook  a  natural  event  for  a  miracle; 
e.  g.y  when  they  thought  Christ  was  walking  on  the 
water,  he  was  in  fact  walking  along  the  shore  so  close 
to  the  lake  that  it  looked  as  if  he  were  on  the  water; 
the  paralytic  borne  by  four  supposed  himself  to  be 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  191 

helpless,  but  really  had  strength  enough  to  walk  when 
roused  to  the  effort;  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was 
caused  by  the  effect  of  the  myrrh  and  spices  in  restor- 
ing his  vital  forces,  which  had  not  been  destroyed  by 
the  crucifixion.  A  book  filled  with  such  remarkable 
explanations  is  decidedly  entertaining:  as  Fairbairn 
remarks,  "  One  of  the  driest  of  books,  it  has  yet  come 
to  be  one  of  the  most  amusing."  No  later  writer  has 
fully  repeated  the  attempt  of  Paulus,  but  some  of  his 
explanations  are  still  brought  forward  by  rationalists; 
e.  g.y  that  the  daughter  of  Jairus  was  not  really  dead  but 
only  seemed  so  (Holtzmann) ;  and  that  Jesus  did  not 
expect  to  feed  the  five  thousand  with  his  little  supply 
of  food,  but  was  ready  to  share  it  as  far  as  it  might 
go,  and  this  display  of  generosity  shamed  others  into 
bringing  forward  their  own  hidden  supplies  which 
amply  sufficed  for  all  (Keim).  Such  attempts  to  keep 
the  gospel  story,  and  yet  reject  the  supernatural,  are 
ingenious  but  unsatisfactory:  it  is  much  simpler  and 
more  logical  to  throw  out  the  miraculous  events  en- 
tirely. 

The  discarding  of  the  miracles,  however,  not  only 
makes  great  gaps  in  the  gospel  narrative,  but  also 
renders  that  which  remains  almost  valueless  for  a  Life 
of  Jesus.  And  this  for  two  reasons:  (1)  The  career 
of  Jesus  becomes  unintelligible  without  certain  miracles 
which  shaped  its  course;  e.  g.,  what  caused  the  crisis 
that  practically  ended  his  work  in  GaUlee,  if  there 


192    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

was  no  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  ?  No 
multitude  would  ever  be  roused  to  a  wild  enthusiasm 
and  an  attempt  to  crown  him  king,  if  Jesus  simply 
shamed  them  into  sharing  their  food  with  one  another. 
What  happened  at  Bethany  to  alarm  the  Sadducees 
and  make  them  join  with  the  Pharisees  in  the  decision 
that  Jesus  must  be  put  to  death  ?  Even  Renan  feels 
that  something  like  a  miracle  must  have  taken  place 
— "some  motive  proceeding  from  Bethany  helped  to 
hasten  the  death  of  Jesus'':  it  was,  he  thinks,  either 
some  saying  of  Jesus  to  the  sisters  which  was  dis- 
torted into  a  report  of  a  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  or 
else  there  was  a  fraudulent  miracle.  What  happened 
at  Jericho  to  arouse  the  popular  Messianic  enthusiasm 
that  led  up  to  the  triumphal  entry?  Even  Keim  is 
disposed  to  believe  that  in  some  way — perhaps  through 
the  intense  power  of  faith  working  on  the  physical 
system — the  blind  actually  was  made  to  see;  "at  any 
rate  this  healing  is  by  far  the  best  attested  among  all 
the  accounts  of  the  blind  in  the  gospels"  (5  :  63). 
Above  all,  what  happened  to  revive  the  faith  of  the 
disciples  after  it  had  been  destroyed  by  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  ?  Every  critic,  though  he  may  deny  the  resur- 
rection, admits  that  the  church  from  the  outset  be- 
lieved it,  since  otherwise  the  existence  of  the  church  at 
all  is  inexplicable.  And  (2)  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are 
often  inseparable  from  miracles;  e.  g.,  the  discourse 
in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  (John  6  :  26/.)  pre-. 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  193 

supposes  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  jBshes.  Such 
an  utterance  about  the  Sabbath  as  Mark  3  :  4  is  hard 
to  explain  unless  some  miracle  of  mercy  performed  on 
that  day  had  called  forth  the  censure  of  the  Pharisees. 
The  story  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness — which 
originally  was  his  own  account  of  a  profound  spiritual 
experience — loses  all  its  significance  unless  Jesus  really 
supposed  he  had  the  power  to  work  miracles,  and  here 
at  the  threshold  of  his  public  ministry  was  pondering 
on  the  problem  how  that  power  should  be  employed. 

"On  the  whole,"  says  Gore,  "miracles  play  so  im- 
portant a  part  in  Christ^s  scheme  that  any  theory  which 
would  represent  them  as  due  entirely  to  the  imagination 
of  his  followers  or  of  a  later  age,  destroys  the  credibility 
of  the  documents  not  partially  but  wholly,  and  leaves 
Christ  a  personage  as  mythical  as  Hercules"  ("The 
Incarnation,"  54).  Dr.  Gore's  statement  ends  in 
exaggeration.  Even  without  the  gospels  Jesus  would 
be  more  than  a  mythical  personage:  the  Christian 
Church,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  Lord's  Day  bear 
witness  to  his  historic  existence.  But  without  the 
gospels  the  story  of  his  life  and  work  would  have  to 
be  reconstructed  almost  wholly  by  imagination:  and, 
indeed,  that  is  the  way  in  which  rationalistic  writers 
do  reconstruct  it. 

Most  influential  of  all  the  factors  that  determine  a 
critic's  use  of  the  gospels  as  sources  for  a  life  of  Christ, 
is  his  attitude  toward  the  divinity  of  Jesus.     It  might 


194    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

seem  that  since  the  gospels  are  practically  the  sole 
record  of  what  he  was  or  claimed  to  be,  our  opinion  of 
the  gospels  would  shape  our  opinion  of  Jesus:  but  in 
actual  experience  the  reverse  proves  true.  No  one 
takes  up  the  study  of  the  gospels  without  some  mental 
— not  to  say  spiritual — bias  for  or  against  his  divinity. 
This  is  created  in  part  by  the  influences  of  childhood 
and  early  years;  for  life  in  a  Christian  land  cannot  be 
lived  without  some  definite  attitude  toward  the  Founder 
of  the  Christian  faith.  But  it  is  created  even  more  by 
the  system  of  philosophical  thought  accepted  by  a  stu- 
dent. What  we  think  about  God  and  his  attitude  tow- 
ard man,  and  about  man  himself  and  his  spiritual 
needs  and  possibilities,  will  shape  our  whole  opinion  of 
the  credibility  of  an  incarnation,  and  therefore  of  the 
proofs  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  God  incarnate. 
The  student  of  the  gospels  having  thus  already — con- 
sciously or  unconsciously — framed  an  opinion  concern- 
ing the  divinity  of  Jesus,  will  be  inclined  to  accept 
in  them  only  those  facts  that  confirm  his  opinion. 

Though  his  miracles  formerly  were  set  forth  as  the 
first  and  chief  proof  that  Jesus  was  divine,  they  are 
rarely  used  in  this  w^ay  now.  In  fact,  their  position 
has  been  almost  completely  reversed.  Instead  of  say- 
ing "We  believe  that  Jesus  was  divine  because  we 
know  that  he  worked  miracles,"  the  defender  of  the 
Christian  faith  to-day  says,  "We  believe  that  Jesus 
worked  miracles  because  we  know  that  he  was  divine." 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  195 

And  for  the  main  proof  of  the  divinity  he  points  not 
only  to  his  character  as  portrayed  in  the  gospels  (see 
p.  179),  but  also  to  his  teachings  concerning  himself — 
in  which  would  be  included  his  attitude  toward  God 
and  men.  The  sceptic,  therefore,  who  has  setded  to 
his  own  satisfaction  the  matter  of  miracles,  has  still  to 
meet  the  far  more  important  evidence  of  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  And  in  his  endeavor  to  explain  away  the 
statements  of  Jesus  that  seem  to  be  proclamations  of 
his  divinity,  he  is  not  as  ready  as  were  his  predecessors 
to  pronounce  the  gospels  late  and  worthless,  and  their 
record  of  Jesus'  words  pure  fabrication.  He  rec- 
ognizes the  strength  of  the  proofs  that  they,  or  their 
sources,  are  early,  and  reproduce  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
with,  at  least,  a  considerable  degree  of  accuracy.  He 
seeks  accordingly  some  way  by  which  the  record  may 
be  accepted  without  admitting  the  divinity.  One  of 
these  ways  is  so  new  and  also  just  now  so  popular  that 
a  brief  statement  of  it  must  be  given. 

The  Revelation  of  St.  John  and  the  latter  part  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  are  examples  of  a  special  class  of  writ- 
ings, called  sometimes  apocalyptical  because  they  pro- 
fess to  unveil  the  future,  and  sometimes  eschatolog- 
ical  because  they  deal  with  events  in  the  last  days  of 
the  present  age  or  eon.  Mark  13  and  other  passages 
both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  Old  belong  to 
the  same  class,  as  also  do  a  number  of  uncanonical 
books,  some  of  which  have  only  recently  been  dis- 


196    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

covered.  Scholars  are  studying  all  these  writings  care- 
fully, and  through  the  increase  of  material  are  able  to 
understand  them  better  than  in  former  days.  They 
are  highly  valued,  not  because  they  reveal  the  future 
to  us,  but  because  they  show  what  the  general  Jewish 
thought  about  the  future  was  in  the  first  century. 
For  we  know  that  apocalyptical  books  were  very  pop- 
ular and  influential  in  Palestine,  and  that  from  them 
were  drawn  the  current  ideas  concerning  the  being  and 
advent  and  work  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  nature  of 
his  Kingdom.  In  general  their  teaching  was  that  in  a 
time  of  stress  and  trial  the  Messiah  would  suddenly 
appear  as  a  superhuman  being,  though  not  divine,  who 
would  crush  all  foes  by  his  miraculous  power,  and  set 
up  a  kingdom  of  marvellous  plenty  and  glory. 

Now  when  Jesus  began  his  work — so  the  sceptic 
would  say — he  found  himself  everywhere  confronted 
with  these  eschatological  ideas  and  expectations,  and, 
doubtless,  to  a  large  extent  he  shared  them  himself. 
Accordingly,  when  he  undertook  to  teach  his  country- 
men the  simple  but  precious  truths  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,  he  used  increasingly  the  popular  apocalyptic 
forms  of  thought  concerning  the  Messianic  Kingdom, 
and  presently  adopted  the  titles  and  claims  of  the 
apocalyptic  Messiah.  Whether  the  Messianic  role  was 
one  he  voluntarily  assumed,  or  whether  it  was  forced 
upon  him  by  his  followers,  may  be  disputed;  but  in 
neither  case  did  he  really  claim  to  be  divine,  for  both 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  197 

to  him  and  to  his  Jewish  followers  such  a  claim  would 
be  blasphemous.  What  is  meant  by  The  Son  of  Man, 
which  was  his  own  favorite  title,  and  The  Son  of  God, 
which  was  the  title  others  delighted  to  give  him,  can 
be  understood  only  by  studying  their  meaning  in  the 
apocalypses.  And  all  his  teachings  about  his  present 
and  future  power  and  mission  should  be  interpreted  by 
the  same  means.  Of  course,  the  teachings  in  the  gos- 
pel of  John  are  to  be  rejected  as  a  later  development 
when  these  Jewish  eschatological  ideas  came  into  con- 
tact with  Greek  thought. 

To  discuss  this  way  of  interpreting  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  about  himself  is  beyond  our  present  purpose. 
That  apocalyptical  ideas  prevailed  in  his  day,  is  un- 
doubtedly true;  and  a  recognition  of  that  fact  may 
throw  new  light  upon  his  words  and  work.  For  ex- 
ample, the  temptation  in  the  wilderness  becomes  in- 
telligible, if  we  bear  in  mind  the  popular  expectation, 
gained  from  apocalypses,  of  how  the  Messiah  would 
use  his  miraculous  power.  It  was  generally  thought 
that  when  the  Messiah  appeared  he  would  work  mir- 
acles to  accomplish  at  least  three  objects,  (1)  to  prove 
beyond  doubt  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  (2)  to  provide 
his  followers  abundantly  with  material,  sensuous  bless- 
ings, and  (3)  to  overthrow  his  foes  and  seat  himself 
upon  the  throne  of  universal  empire.  Out  of  Jesus' 
natural  desire  to  draw  men  to  himself  arose  the  tempta- 
tion to  use  his  power  as  the  Son  of  God  to  work 


198    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

miracles  that  would  meet  these  expectations.  In  sym- 
bolical form  he  describes  it  as  the  temptation  (1)  to 
descend  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  borne  by 
angels,  (2)  to  turn  the  very  stones  of  the  wilderness 
into  bread  for  the  hungry,  and  (3)  to  bow  down  to 
Satan.  Such  temptations  confronted  him  not  only  at 
the  outset  but  all  through  his  ministry,  and  their 
origin  was  in  the  eschatological  ideas  that  filled  the 
minds  of  those  who  thronged  about  him  wondering  if 
he  really  could  be  the  expected  Messiah. 

It  is  one  thing,  however,  to  recognize  that  in  his  work 
Jesus  was  constantly  confronted  with  apocalyptical 
ideas,  and  quite  another  thing  to  hold  that  he  shared 
or  even  adopted  those  ideas.  For  this  latter  opinion 
there  is  little  evidence.  When  we  consider  the  char- 
acter of  his  ministry,  the  difficulty  with  which  men 
grasped  his  teachings,  the  bitter  opposition  he  aroused, 
and  the  slowness  with  which  even  the  twelve  recog- 
nized him  to  be  the  Messiah,  it  seems  evident  that  he  was 
far  from  fulfilling  the  popular  Messianic  expectations. 
And  if  the  apocalyptical  writings  were  the  source  of 
those  expectations,  they  certainly  cannot  be  used  to 
explain  the  teachings  of  Jesus  about  himself. 

In  the  use  of  the  first  three  gospels  for  a  life  of 
Christ,  a  recognition  of  the  synoptic  problem  and  its 
generally  accepted  solution  ought  to  bear  fruit  in 
various  ways.  For  example,  if  these  gospels  make  use 
of  a  common  source,  the  fact  that  an  incident  is  given 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  199 

by  all  three  does  not  increase  its  trustworthiness  except 
as  strengthening  the  evidence  that  it  was  in  the  com- 
mon source  and  not  added  later.  And  if  the  details 
of  an  incident  vary  in  the  three,  such  variations  are  to 
be  treated  no  longer  as  those  of  different  eye-witnesses 
but  as  those  of  different  writers  using  a  common  source. 
Above  all,  the  common  sources,  if  they  can  be  restored, 
are  the  real  authority.  The  synoptists  used  them — 
whether  faithfully  or  not  critics  must  determine:  and 
certainly  present  day  writers  are  as  competent  as  the 
synoptists  to  quote  their  statements  or  arrange  their 
facts.  The  difficulty,  of  course,  is  in  recovering  the 
sources;  and,  despite  all  toil  of  critics,  the  results  thus 
far  are  indefinite — at  least,  they  have  borne  little  fruit 
in  the  lives  of  Christ.  The  biographer  of  Jesus  who 
undertakes  to  go  behind  the  synoptics  does  not  differ 
very  much  from  his  brother  of  fifty  years  ago :  he  may 
make  a  far  more  elaborate  display  of  scholarship,  and 
talk  much  more  about  Ur  Marcus  and  Q  and  EvangeUa 
infantioB  and  Jewish-Christian  apocalypses,  and  the 
like;  but  when  he  comes  to  reconstruct  the  story,  he 
usually  follows  pretty  consistently  his  own  prejudices 
for  or  against  the  miraculous  and  divine  in  deciding 
what  to  include  and  what  to  omit. 

If  the  gospels  are  taken  as  trustworthy  records, 
there  still  remains  the  problem  how  they  are  to  be  used. 
Two  methods  of  treatment  are  possible.  On  the  one 
hand  they  may  be  looked  upon  as  brief  biographies. 


200    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

written  from  the  stand-point  of  an  historian.  In  this 
case,  we  construct  from  them  a  chronological  outline, 
and  fill  this  in  with  the  various  recorded  events. 
There  are  evident  gaps  in  the  record,  and  there  are 
sometimes  apparent  duplicates  of  events;  what  Jesus 
did,  e.  g.,  in  the  period  between  his  return  from  the  two 
days'  sojourn  in  Samaria  and  the  beginning  of  his  work 
in  Galilee  after  John's  imprisonment,  must  remain  un- 
known, and  whether  he  was  rejected  in  Nazareth  once 
or  twice  is  an  open  question.  But  a  careful  study  of 
the  gospel  record  ought  to  result  in  a  fairly  definite  and 
complete  history  which  will  trace  the  progress  of  Jesus 
step  by  step  from  the  baptism  to  the  ascension. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  gospels  may  be  considered  as 
memorabilia  of  what  Jesus  was  and  taught,  preserved 
by  the  disciples  for  guidance  in  fashioning  their  own 
lives  after  his  example,  for  light  upon  the  truths  most 
important  in  their  thought,  and  for  use  in  persuading 
others  that  he  was  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
If  such  is  the  character  of  the  gospels,  it  is  impossible 
to  gain  from  them  a  chronological  history;  they  do  not 
contain  it.  As  well  try  to  gain  a  history  of  Socrates 
from  Xenophon's  "  Memorabilia."  Some  chapters  can 
be  reconstructed :  a  general  idea  may  be  gained  of  the 
progress  of  events  that  led  to  the  creation  of  apostolic 
faith  and  also  to  the  culmination  of  Jewish  hostility; 
but  a  biography  of  Jesus  is  beyond  attainment.  The 
most  recent  lives  of  Christ  are  fashioned  according  to 


THE  USE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  201 

this  view.  Bossuet  says:  "  We  are  no  longer  in  a  posi- 
tion to  reconstruct  an  historical  picture  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  according  to  its  chronological  de- 
velopment; for  the  narrative  of  our  gospels,  with  its 
prevailing  timelessness  and  its  frequent  arrangement 
of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  in  a  designedly  material 
order,  does  not  provide  the  means  necessary  for  such  a 
picture." 

In  this  connection  we  may  notice  that  recent  lives 
of  Christ  devote  much  less  space  than  formerly  to  de- 
scriptions of  Palestinian  life  and  thought  in  the  first 
century — that  which  Garvie  calls  "the  scenery,  the 
upholstery  and  drapery  of  the  life  of  Jesus."  Un- 
questionably there  was  a  close  connection  between 
Jesus  and  his  environment:  all  modern  critics  recog- 
nize this.  Those  who  see  in  him  only  a  remarkable 
Galilean  Jew  of  the  first  century  declare  that  his  sur- 
roundings, social,  political,  intellectual  and  religious, 
had  large  influence  in  fashioning  his  character  and 
thought.  Those  who  accept  him  as  divine  recognize 
that  these  surroundings  necessarily  shaped  the  immedi- 
ate fashion  of  his  teachings  and  his  work.  In  either 
case  a  knowledge  of  his  times  is  important  for  the  study 
of  his  life.  But  the  matter  may  be  overdone.  Bulky 
volumes  crowded  with  minute  and  curious  details  of 
Palestinian  life,  drawn  from  all  sources,  do  not  set  Jesus 
more  clearly  before  us :  they  simply  bewilder  the  reader 
and  turn  his  thoughts  away  from  the  real  subject  of  his 


202    INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

study.  And  the  minor  value  of  such  details  is  well  ex- 
pressed by  Garvie  when  he  says,  "  An  exaggerated  im- 
portance is  attached  to  a  knowledge  of  contemporary 
custom  and  costume:  even  the  ideas  and  ideals  of  his 
environment — important  as  a  knowledge  of  these  is — 
do  not  explain  Jesus." 


APPENDIX 

LIVES   OF   CHRIST 


In  the  Mediaeval  Age  the  human  nature  and  life  of  Christ  were 
largely  ignored.  Popular  thought  emphasized  his  divinity,  and 
any  attempt  to  portray  the  manner  in  which  he  lived  as  man 
among  men  would  have  seemed  irreverent  or  even  blasphemous. 
In  their  longing  for  one  who  had  been  tempted  in  all  points  like 
themselves  and  could  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  their  infirm- 
ities, men  turned  to  the  Virgin  and  the  saints.  Lives  of  these 
were  plenty  and  popular,  but  lives  of  Christ  were  almost  lacking, 
and  were  largely  poetical  and  legendary. 

After  the  Reformation  the  main  interest  was  in  theology,  and 
thought  concerning  Christ  centred  upon  his  work  as  Redeemer 
rather  than  upon  his  eaYthly  history.  Harmonies  of  the  gospels 
were  produced  to  explain  seeming  discrepancies  in  the  sacred 
story,  but  the  Lives  of  Christ  were  simple  repetitions  of  the 
Scripture  narrative  for  devotional  purposes.  A  work  by  Jeremy 
Taylor  (1635)  was  worthy  of  that  great  divine,  and  is  still  of 
value;  but  its  character  is  well  indicated  by  its  title — "The  Great 
Exemplar  of  Sanctity  and  Holy  Life  according  to  the  Christian 
Institution;  described  in  the  History  of  the  Life  and  Death  of 
the  Ever-Blessed  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  World;  with 
Considerations  and  Discourses  upon  the  several  parts  of  the 
Story,  and  Prayers  fitted  to  the  several  Mysteries."  In  1767 
John  Fleetwood  (probably  a  pseudonym)  published  a  Life  of  Christ 
which  became  remarkably  popular,  passing  through  edition  after 
edition  in  later  years,  and  still  on  sale  to-day.  As  a  scholarly 
work  the  book  has  no  value,  but  it  ministered  to  a  want  which 
men  were  beginning  to  recognize,  and  for  which  there  was  as  yet 
scanty  provision. 

203 


204  APPENDIX 

Modern  interest  in  the  record  of  Christ's  earthly  years  springs 
from  many  causes;  but,  as  Fairbairn  points  out,  the  main  one 
is  "the  growth  of  the  historical  spirit."  That  spirit,  which  has 
led  us  to  explore  so  carefully  and  critically  all  records  of  the  past, 
could  not  be  content  to  scrutinize  the  other  great  characters  of 
antiquity  and  "ignore  the  Supreme  Person  of  history."  Rever- 
ence might  hold  back  the  critical  student  for  a  season,  but  sooner 
or  later  he  would  proceed  to  apply  historical  methods  of  investi- 
gation to  the  question,  What  do  we  really  know  concerning  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  ?     Who  was  he,  and  what  did  he  do  ? 


II 

Although  the  historical  spirit  had  begun  to  develop,  and  Nie- 
buhr  and  others  were  reconstructing  in  most  radical  fashion  the 
history  of  Rome  and  of  Greece,  the  immediate  impulse  that  pro- 
duced the  book,  initiating  a  new  epoch  in  the  study  of  the  life 
of  Christ,  was  philosophical  rather  than  historical. 

Strauss  was  a  young  professor  at  Tubingen,  and  an  enthu- 
siastic disciple  of  Hegel.  In  1835  he  published  a  Life  of  Jesus, 
which  was  translated  in  1846  by  Miss  Evans,  "George  Eliot," 
from  the  fourth  German  edition.  His  aim  was  to  use  the  prin- 
ciples of  Hegelian  philosophy  in  explanation  of  the  Christian 
teachings  concerning  Jesus.  God  is  not  a  Person;  therefore, 
miracles  are  impossible.  The  full  incarnation  of  God  is  not  in 
any  individual,  but  in  Humanity.  "Humanity  is  the  child  of  the 
visible  Mother  and  the  invisible  Father — of  Nature  and  Spirit; 
it  is  the  Miracle-worker,  in  so  far  as  in  the  course  of  human 
history  the  Spirit  becomes  ever  more  perfectly  the  Master  of 
Nature;  it  is  the  sinless,  inasmuch  as  the  process  of  its  develop- 
ment is  blameless — defilement  cleaves  to  the  individual,  but  is 
abolished  in  the  species  and  its  history;  it  is  the  One  that  dies, 
rises  again,  and  ascends  to  heaven,  since  from  the  negation  of  its 
natural  there  proceeds  always  a  higher  spiritual  life."  These  are 
the  absolute  truths  that  are  wrought  into  the  story  of  Jesus.  The 
historical  facts  of  his  life,  so  far  as  we  can  recover  them,  are 
few  and  simple.  He  was  reared  in  Nazareth,  baptized  by  John, 
had  disciples,  went  about  teaching,  introduced  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  roused  the  hatred  of  the  Pharisees,  and  was  crucified. 


APPENDIX  205 

The  rest  of  the  story,  as  told  in  the  gospels,  which  were  written 
late  in  the  second  century,  is  mythical.  By  a  myth  Strauss  does 
not  mean  a  deliberately  invented  falsehood;  it  is  a  story  embody- 
ing popular  theological  and  philosophical  ideas,  which  is  framed 
almost  unconsciously  by  simple-hearted  believers  and  incor- 
porated in  the  history  of  the  person  to  whom  they  feel  it  fitly 
belongs.  The  early  Christians  believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Mes- 
siah (though  Strauss  fails  to  account  for  the  rise  of  that  belief), 
and  so  they  took  it  for  granted  that  he  must  have  done  whatever 
they  supposed  the  Messiah  would  do.  They  had  gained  their 
Messianic  ideas  largely  from  the  Old  Testament;  therefore,  what- 
ever they  found  there,  they  transferred  to  the  life  of  Jesus.  For 
example,  they  inferred  from  Isaiah  35  :  5-6  that  when  the  Mes- 
siah came  the  eyes  of  the  blind  would  be  opened,  the  ears  of  the 
deaf  unsealed,  etc.,  and  so  such  miracles  became  part  of  their 
conception  of  the  deeds  of  Jesus.  Moreover,  they  supposed  that 
all  the  wonderful  incidents  in  the  lives  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints  must  have  been  paralleled  or  surpassed  in  the  life  of  the 
Messiah;  so  the  shining  of  the  face  of  Moses  gave  rise  to  the 
myth  of  the  transfiguration  on  the  mount;  the  feast  of  Elisha 
(II  Kings  4  :  42/.)  was  magnified  into  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand; the  ascension  of  Elijah  suggested  the  ascension  of  Jesus, 
etc.  Thus  a  large  part  of  the  supernatural  incidents  in  the  life 
of  Jesus  can  readily  be  accounted  for.  As  regards  the  rest,  the 
myths  are  an  attempt  to  express  eternal  verities  concerning  the 
union  of  God  with  man  and  its  manifestations — verities  which 
the  Christian  church  perceived,  but  which  were  supposed  to  have 
been  revealed  in  Jesus  instead  of  in  Humanity.  These  events 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  should  be  interpreted,  not  as  history,  but  as  the 
picturesque  thought  of  a  simple  age  concerning  the  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  life  of  mankind. 

This  was  the  famous  mythical  theory  of  Strauss.  He  wrote 
his  book,  as  he  states  in  its  preface,  for  theologians  and  not  for 
the  laity,  and  with  the  conviction  that  it  would  help  rather  than 
injure  the  Christian  faith.  Many  years  later,  in  1864,  he  pub- 
lished another  Life  of  Jesus  (translated  in  1865)  more  popular  in 
form,  in  which  he  largely  abandoned  the  mythical  theory,  and  ex- 
plained the  gospel  story  as  a  deliberate  falsehood  of  the  early 
Christians.    Finally,  in  his  latest  work,  "The  Old  Faith  and  the 


206  APPENDIX 

New,"  he  rejected  Christianity  entirely,  thus  showing  the  legiti- 
mate result  of  his  original  undertaking. 

The  book  by  Strauss  at  once  aroused  much  excitement,  and 
brought  upon  him  a  storm  of  orthodox  indignation.  It  called 
forth  a  host  of  replies,  among  which  were  two  Lives  of  Christ 
deserving  notice. 

Neander  was  originally  a  Jew  named  David  Mendel,  and  he 
took  the  name  Neander  ("a  new  man")  when  converted  to 
Christianity.  He  was  now  a  prominent  church  historian  in  Ber- 
lin, a  man  of  great  learning  and  piety.  He  answered  Strauss  by 
publishing  in  1837  a  Life  of  Christ,  which  was  translated  in  1848. 
It  is  keen  and  devout,  accepting  the  four  gospels  and  defending 
the  miracles,  but  it  is  inclined  to  go  as  far  as  possible  in  yield- 
ing to  the  objections  of  sceptics  in  order  to  win  them  back  from 
following  Strauss.  The  book  is  valuable,  but  in  many  ways  fails 
to  meet  the  needs  of  the  present  day. 

Lange,  best  known  as  a  famous  commentator,  held  at  Zurich 
the  chair  of  theology  which  would  have  been  given  to  Strauss 
had  he  not  roused  the  opposition  of  the  orthodox.  In  1844-7  he 
published  a  Life  of  Jesus  (translated  in  1864)  which  was  his  con- 
tribution to  the  controversy  then  waging.  It  is  a  voluminous 
work,  devout  in  spirit  and  accepting  all  four  gospels,  but  vague 
and  fanciful  in  its  treatment  of  Christ's  divinity  and  its  theory 
of  the  relation  of  miracles  to  natural  law.  The  average  reader 
will  find  himself  wearied  and  befogged  in  its  pages. 

Ill 

A  myth  requires  time  for  its  development;  therefore,  if  the 
gospels  are  full  of  myths,  they  must  have  been  written  far  down 
in  the  second  century.  Strauss  in  his  first  work  simply  took  the 
late  date  for  granted,  thereby  leaving  the  weakest  point  in  his 
theory  undefended.  But  a  group  of  scholars,  like  him  Hegelian 
in  their  philosophy  and  desirous  of  explaining  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity by  purely  natural  causes,  soon  undertook  the  task  he  had 
slighted. 

The  Tubingen  School  is  the  name  given  to  this  group  because 
its  leader,  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  was  professor  at  Tubingen, 
and  there  gathered  around  him  many  brilliant  younger  men  as 


APPENDIX  207 

his  disciples  and  supporters.  In  their  opinion  Christianity  at  the 
beginning  was  simply  one  form  of  Judaism  with  Jesus  as  the 
Jewish  Messiah.  Paul  was  the  first  to  develop  the  broader  view 
that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  Chris- 
tianity is  wholly  distinct  from  Judaism.  Thereupon  arose  a  bitter 
and  prolonged  conflict  between  the  two  parties — the  Jewish  form 
of  Christianity  fiercely  opposing  the  Pauline.  Later  on,  the  two 
were  reconciled;  and  still  later  the  fact  that  there  had  ever  been 
a  conflict  was  covered  up.  In  this  way  the  Tubingen  School  ex- 
plained Christianity  as  a  purely  natural  evolution  according  to  the 
regular  Hegelian  process  of  thesis,  antithesis,  and  synthesis — posi- 
tion, opposition,  and  reconciliation.  Accepting  this  view,  they 
had  a  test  by  which  to  determine  the  date  of  New  Testament 
writings.  Books  that  show  the  conflict  in  actual  existence — in 
particular,  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans  for  the  Pauline 
side,  and  Revelation  for  the  Jewish — belong  to  the  Apostolic  Age; 
books  conciliatory  in  spirit,  and  striving  to  promote  harmony  by 
showing  real  agreement  underneath  seeming  differences,  are  post- 
apostolic;  books  which  ignore  the  conflict  altogether  are  late  in 
the  second  century.  Applying  this  test  to  the  gospels,  John  is 
found  to  be  neither  Jewish  nor  Pauline,  but  wholly  Catholic — 
before  it  was  written  the  conflict  had  ceased  and  been  forgotten; 
the  other  three  gospels  are  conciliatory,  Matthew  being  written 
from  the  Jewish  stand-point  and  Luke  from  the  Pauline,  while 
Mark  is  chiefly  a  compilation  from  the  other  two.  John,  there- 
fore, must  have  been  written  so  late  in  the  second  century  as  to 
be  worthless  historically;  the  synoptics  must  be  placed  earlier 
in  that  century,  and  are  imperfectly  trustworthy,  Matthew  being 
the  earliest  and  most  reliable.  In  making  use  of  the  gospels  we 
must  not  treat  them  as  books  of  history,  but  rather  as  Tendenz 
Schriften — writings  shaped  by  party  feelings — and  we  must  bear 
in  mind  the  special  object  of  each  writer  and  the  late  date  at 
which  he  wrote. 

The  Tubingen  School  produced  no  Life  of  Jesus,  but  set  forth 
its  conception  of  his  life  in  works  on  Paul  and  the  Apostolic  Age, 
of  which  Baur's  Paul  (1845,  translated  in  1875)  and  Church  His- 
tory of  the  First  Three  Centuries  (1853,  translated  in  1879)  were 
the  beginning.  It  now  has  few  if  any  followers,  because  careful 
study  has  shown  that  the  New  Testament  books  were  written  at 


208  APPENDIX 

an  earlier  date  than  would  be  consistent  with  its  theory.  Un- 
doubtedly there  was  a  struggle  in  the  apostolic  church  between 
the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  parties  concerning  the  Law  and  the 
freedom  wherewith  Christ  had  set  them  free;  but  it  was  neither 
so  long  and  wide-spread  nor  so  dominant  over  all  church  life  as 
the  Tubingen  theory  supposes.  But  the  Tubingen  School  for  a 
season  exerted  a  strong  influence,  felt  by  every  writer  upon  the 
life  of  Christ;  and  it  rendered  one  lasting  and  valuable  service — 
henceforth  no  writer  could  ignore  the  problem  of  the  date  and 
origin  of  the  gospels. 

Ewald,  a  most  learned  Oriental  scholar  at  Gottingen,  devoted 
the  fifth  volume  of  his  great  work  on  the  History  of  Israel  to 
the  life  and  times  of  Christ  (1854,  translated  in  1865).  He 
was  strongly  opposed  to  Baur,  and  accepted  all  four  gospels  as 
written  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  ably  defending  John  ajs  the  work 
of  the  apostle.  As  regards  miracles  he  is  Left  Centre,  for,  while 
he  believes  Jesus  to  be  "the  sole,  unfailing  instrument  of  the 
salvation  of  this  world,"  he  rejects  the  virgin  birth,  and  sees  in 
him  simply  a  human  being  elevated  to  a  unique  and  perfect  union 
with  God,  and  in  his  miracles  a  revelation  of  what  the  spirit  of 
man  thus  elevated  can  accomplish.  The  life  of  Christ  is  the 
culmination  of  the  religious  history  of  the  Jews — the  full  revela- 
tion of  God  to  man.  Jesus  combined  in  himself  aU  the  pro- 
phetic, priestly,  and  kingly  power  that  had  previously  been  ex- 
hibited in  Israel;  "thus  he  became  the  Son  of  God  as  no  one 
hitherto  had  been — in  a  mortal  body  and  in  a  fleeting  space  of 
time  the  purest  and  most  perfect  image  of  the  Eternal  Himself; 
thus  he  became  the  Word  of  God,  speaking  from  God  by  his 
human  word  no  less  than  by  his  whole  appearing  and  work;  and 
thus  the  one,  true  Messiah,  the  undying  King  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  which  was  in  him  first  attaining  its  perfection  amongst  men 
— the  one  man  to  whom  as  Guide  and  Lord  every  one  must  con- 
stantly look  up  and  aspire."  The  book  is  by  no  means  easy 
reading,  and  Ewald  is  stronger  in  Old  Testament  study  than  in 
New. 


APPENDIX  209 


IV 


According  to  the  theories  of  Strauss  and  Baur,  the  part  which 
Jesus  played  in  the  origin  of  Christianity  was  really  an  insignifi- 
cant one.  Almost  any  high-minded,  earnest  teacher  might  have 
given  the  feeble  initial  impulse  that  set  the  Christian  church  in 
motion,  and  have  served  as  the  figure  around  which  the  later  con- 
ceptions of  a  divine  founder  were  to  cluster.  Indeed,  instead  of 
recognizing  that  Jesus  created  Christianity,  these  writers  practi- 
cally maintain  the  exact  opposite — that  Christianity  created  Jesus; 
for,  without  the  later  additions  to  his  story,  he  remains  a  shade 
as  thin  and  unsubstantial  as  that  described  in  Arthur  Clough's 
poem,  "  The  Shadow." 

Renan,  the  brilliant  French  Semitic  scholar,  saw  this  funda- 
mental mistake,  and  set  himself  to  correct  it.  "History  is  not  a 
simple  play  of  abstractions;  in  it  men  are  more  than  doctrines": 
hence  all  attempts  to  explain  the  origin  of  Christianity  by  philo- 
sophical principles  and  tendencies  and  parties  and  conflicts,  apart 
from  the  creative  personality  of  its  Founder,  are  doomed  to  fail- 
ure. Accordingly,  Renan  in  his  "  Vie  de  Jesus  "  undertook  to  pre- 
sent Jesus  as  "a  man  of  great  religious  genius  who,  through  his 
daring  originality  and  the  love  he  had  the  gift  of  inspiring,  became 
the  object  and  fixed  the  point  of  departure  of  the  future  faith  of 
humanity."  The  book  was  published  in  1863,  and  at  once  aroused 
so  much  attention  that  its  publication  was  called  one  of  the 
events  of  the  century.  Eleven  editions  w^ere  exhausted  within 
six  months,  and  it  was  translated  into  English  the  same  year. 

Some  of  its  great  popularity  was  due  to  the  charm  of  its  liter- 
ary style,  so  unlike  the  heavy,  tedious  chapters  of  the  German 
writers;  but  what  attracted  readers  still  more  powerfully  was  its 
novel  and  vivid  picture  of  Jesus.  Renan  rejected  the  super- 
natural entirely,  declaring  that  "miracles  are  things  that  never 
happen":  though  the  gospel  story  is  full  of  them,  they  are  to  be 
treated  as  simply  legends  which,  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  grew 
up  rapidly  in  an  age  of  childish  credulity.  Having  thus  con- 
temptuously cast  away  a  large  part  of  what  the  evangelists  record, 
he  treated  the  rest  of  their  narrative  with  the  utmost  liberty,  re- 
constructing the  history  according  to  his  own  theories  and  fancy. 
Jesus  was  a  pure,  high-minded  Galilean  peasant  upon  whom  had 


210  APPENDIX 

dawned  the  mighty  truth  that  God  is  our  Father.  He  gathered 
about  him  a  little  band  of  disciples,  drawn  by  the  charm  of  his 
presence  and  the  novelty  of  his  teaching;  and  these  he  taught 
to  live  in  simplicity  and  joyousness  as  children  of  the  Father. 
Presently  he  came  under  the  influence  of  John  the  Baptist,  an 
influence  which  on  the  whole  was  harmful,  since  through  it  he 
was  led  to  believe  that  his  mission  was  that  of  a  universal  re- 
former, and  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  must  be  introduced  by  an 
overthrow  of  existing  conditions.  His  disciples  increased  rapidly 
after  the  imprisonment  of  John,  and,  because  they  believed  him 
to  be  the  Messiah,  he  was  forced  against  his  will  into  an  attempt 
to  fulfil  Messianic  expectations.  He  had  to  make  claims  that 
he  knew  were  unfounded,  and  in  support  of  them  he  had  to 
adopt  or,  at  least,  to  acquiesce  in  fraud  and  sham  miracles.  His 
career  grew  more  fanatical  and  desperate  until,  when  he  was 
put  to  death,  "it  was  time  for  death  to  relax  the  tension  of  a  situ- 
ation strained  to  the  utmost — to  remove  him  from  the  impossi- 
bilities of  a  path  that  had  no  issue."  Had  he  died  in  the  first 
period  of  his  career,  "there  would  not  have  been  in  his  life  a 
single  page  that  could  wound  us";  but,  as  it  was,  we  often  have 
to  make  excuses,  to  confess  that  "he  adopted,  because  they  were 
popular,  many  things  with  which  he  did  not  agree,"  and  "some- 
times one  might  have  said  that  his  reason  was  unbalanced." 
The  book  abounds  in  professions  of  deepest  admiration,  and 
closes  with  the  statement,  "Whatever  unlooked-for  events  the 
future  may  have  in  store,  Jesus  will  never  be  surpassed;  his  wor- 
ship will  unceasingly  renew  its  youth;  his  story  will  call  forth 
endless  tears;  his  sufferings  will  subdue  the  noblest  hearts;  all 
ages  will  proclaim  that  among  the  sons  of  men  no  one  has  been 
born  who  is  greater  than  he."  And  yet  it  repeatedly  describes 
Jesus  as  doing  things  that  shock  a  keen  moral  sense,  though  the 
writer  does  not  always  seem  to  realize  that  they  are  shocking. 
When  the  multitude  at  Jerusalem  were  discussing  Jesus,  "some 
said.  He  is  a  good  man;  others  said.  Nay,  but  he  deceiveth  the 
people"  (John  7  :  12);  Renan  would  combine  both  opinions  as  if 
they  were  not  contradictory.  Of  the  book,  Weiss  says  very  prop- 
erly, "It  is  not  history,  but  a  romance,"  and  H.  B.  Smith  adds, 
"It  can  not  be  read  without  the  risk  of  marring  the  moral  sense." 
Pressense,  a  French  clergyman  and  author,  in  1865  published 


APPENDIX  211 

his  "  Jdsus  Christ,  son  Temps,  sa  Vie,  son  CEuvre,"  as  an  answer 
to  Renan.  Though  somewhat  florid  in  style,  it  is  a  full,  clear,  and 
orthodox  life  of  Christ,  accepting  the  gospel  record  and  defend- 
ing the  miracles.  At  the  time  it  was,  perhaps,  the  best  book  on 
the  subject  from  an  orthodox  stand-point,  and  it  passed  through 
many  editions.  Though  translated  into  English  in  1866,  it  has 
not  been  widely  circulated  here  because  we  have  other  Lives  of 
Christ  of  the  same  character  written  with  equal  or  greater  ability. 


Though  the  attempt  of  Renan  to  explain  the  origin  and  char- 
acter of  Christianity  through  the  influence  and  teachings  of  its 
Founder  was  far  from  successful,  it  opened  a  line  of  study  which 
has  been  followed  with  great  profit  in  late  years.  What  was  the 
secret  of  the  influence  of  Jesus  ?  What  was  the  aim  that  he  had 
in  view  when  establishing  the  Kingdom  of  God  ?  What  were  the 
methods  and  the  laws  he  laid  down  for  his  followers  ?  Questions 
like  these,  when  once  forced  upon  men's  attention,  are  too  in- 
teresting and  profitable  to  be  left  unanswered. 

"Ecce  Homo''  was  an  attempt  to  answer  them.  The  book  was 
published  anonymously  in  1866,  and  the  secret  was  kept  for 
many  years  that  its  author  was  J.  R.  Seeley,  who  later  was  an 
eminent  professor  of  modern  history  at  Cambridge,  England.  In 
his  preface  he  says  that  he  had  been  led  to  the  study  of  his  sub- 
ject, "  because,  after  reading  a  good  many  books  on  Christ,  he  felt 
still  constrained  to  confess  that  there  was  no  historical  character 
whose  motives,  objects,  and  feelings  remained  so  incomprehen- 
sible to  him";  and  what  he  has  written  is  an  endeavor  "to  fur- 
nish an  answer  to  the  question.  What  was  Christ's  object  in  found- 
ing the  Society  which  is  called  by  his  name,  and  how  is  it  adapted 
to  attain  that  object?"  For  his  purpose  only  the  general  out- 
lines of  the  life  of  Christ  are  necessary,  and  these  he  takes  with- 
out question  from  the  gospels;  also  he  recognizes  that  "the  fact 
that  Jesus  appeared  as  a  worker  of  miracles  is  the  best  attested 
fact  in  his  whole  biography."  The  book,  as  the  title  indicates, 
confines  itself  to  the  human  side  of  Christ,  and  considers  in  detail 
the  call  he  gave  to  his  disciples  and  the  legislation  he  gave  to 
his  Society.    A  second  volume,  in  which  the  divine  side  of  Christ 


212  APPENDIX 

and  his  personal  relations  as  Judge  and  Master  to  all  men 
should  be  discussed,  was  promised,  but  never  written.  "It  was 
a  fresh  and  powerful  book;  it  went,  as  it  were,  unweakened  by 
metaphysical  or  critical  hesitancies,  straight  to  the  moral  heart 
of  the  matter,  and  asked  the  meaning  of  the  person  and  message 
and  society  of  Jesus"  (Fairbairn).  F.  G.  Peabody  says  of  it: 
"The  extraordinary  insight  of  this  book  into  the  spirit  of  the 
gospels,  and  its  beauty  and  vigor  of  expression  make  its  publi- 
cation an  epoch  in  the  interpretation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus." 
Modern  study  of  the  social  and  ethical  teachings  of  Jesus,  which 
is  constantly  increasing,  may  be  said  to  date  from  its  appearance. 
Of  course,  the  restriction  of  the  discussion  to  the  human  side  of 
Jesus  made  the  book — reverent  though  it  was  and  wholly  unlike 
Renan  in  moral  tone — seem  to  many  a  pitifully  inadequate  pict- 
ure of  the  Godman;  and  it  aroused  much  criticism  and  many 
replies,  among  them  the  "Ecce  Deus,"  1868,  of  Joseph  Parker,  a 
prominent  London  preacher. 

VI 

Another  result  of  Kenan's  work  was  to  make  students  recognize 
the  importance  of  a  careful  investigation  of  the  environment  in 
which  Jesus  lived  and  labored.  Renan  in  his  introduction  de- 
scribes his  surprise  at  the  light  upon  the  life  of  Jesus  which  was 
gained  by  a  sojourn  in  Palestine:  "before  my  eyes  I  had  a  fifth 
gospel,  torn,  but  still  legible;  and  from  that  time,  through  the 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  I  saw,  instead  of  an  abstract 
being  who  might  be  said  never  to  have  existed,  an  admirable 
human  figure  living  and  moving."  And  in  his  book  Renan  had 
endeavored  to  follow  the  rule  which  he  himself  lays  down — "The 
first  task  of  the  historian  is  to  sketch  well  the  environment  in 
which  the  events  he  relates  took  place."  Of  course,  if  Jesus  was 
simply  a  man,  the  influences  that  surrounded  him  go  far  tow- 
ard explaining  his  career;  and  if  we  recognize  his  divinity,  still 
we  must  approach  it,  as  did  the  first  disciples,  by  first  becoming 
acquainted  with  his  humanity  as  displayed  under  special  condi- 
tions of  race  and  age  and  thought.  In  no  case  can  we  ignore 
the  land  and  the  times  in  which  Jesus  lived. 

Keim,  professor  of  historical  theology  at  Zurich,  gave  us  the 


APPENDIX  213 

first  of  the  great  environmental  biographies  in  his  "History  of 
Jesus  of  Nazara  in  its  Connection  with  the  National  Life  of  His 
People."  It  appeared  in  three  large  volumes  in  1867-72  with  an 
English  translation  in  six  volumes,  1873-83.  It  is  full  and  admi- 
rable in  its  treatment  of  all  the  facts  of  Jewish  life  and  thought 
that  bear  upon  its  subject.  Keim,  like  Renan,  also  sees  that 
"no  religion  depends  upon  the  person  of  its  founder  so  fully  as 
the  Christian  religion:  in  other  instances  faith  is  based  chiefly  on 
the  founder's  teachings,  but  here  rather  upon  a  life  in  which  men 
have  found  not  merely  a  voice  from  heaven  but  a  divine  advent." 
In  his  use  of  the  gospels  he  rejects  John  entirely,  and  gives  pref- 
erence to  Matthew  as  the  earliest  of  the  synoptics,  written  about 
A.  D.  68.  On  miracles  he  is  Left  Centre,  rejecting  all  the  nature 
miracles,  and  holding  that  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  were  by 
the  action  of  spirit  upon  spirit — the  product  of  high  spiritual  life 
and  intense  sympathy  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  and  of  faith  in  him 
on  the  part  of  the  sufferer.  While  he  denies  the  bodily  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus,  he  ably  refutes  the  theories  of  earlier  sceptics,  and 
holds  that  there  was  granted  to  the  sorrowing  disciples  a  spiritual 
vision  of  their  living  Lord — "a  telegram  from  heaven" — to  as- 
sure them  that  he  had  conquered  death.  Keim  was  unwilling 
to  accept  the  orthodox  view  of  the  divinity  of  Christ;  yet  he  was 
deeply  impressed  with  the  sublimity  of  his  life  "  which  makes  the 
impression  of  mysterious  loneliness,  superhuman  miracle,  divine 
creation."  Dr.  S.  M.  Jackson  says  of  his  book:  ''Nothing  like  it 
had  hitherto  appeared.  Immense  learning,  tireless  energy,  ner- 
vous force,  deep  convictions,  cautious  judgment,  reverence — these 
united  give  the  work  a  lasting  importance.  It  was  and  remains 
the  Life  of  Jesus  from  a  rationalistic  stand-point." 

Fouard,  professor  of  theology  in  Rouen,  wrote  in  1879  a  Life  of 
Jesus  (translated  in  1890),  which  is  interesting  as  being  the  work 
of  a  Roman  Catholic  abb^.  Naturally,  he  gives  a  place  in  it  to 
the  traditions  handed  down  by  the  church,  and  interprets  certain 
sayings  of  Jesus  from  the  Roman  Catholic  stand-point;  but  there 
is  little  in  it  to  distinguish  it  from  similar  works  by  devout,  ortho- 
dox Protestants.  It  is  the  production  of  a  scholar,  and  is  written 
in  an  easy,  attractive  style. 


214  APPENDIX 

VII 

Continued  study  of  the  dates  for  the  gospels  slowly  forced  back 
the  Tubingen  School  until  scholars  generally  agreed  that  the  sy- 
noptics must  have  been  written  in  the  first  century  and  that  John 
could  not  be  later  than  the  opening  years  of  the  second  century. 
If  so,  they  were  written  in  the  lifetime  of  either  the  apostles 
themselves  or  of  those  who  were  the  immediate  disciples  of  the 
apostles;  and  the  objection  that  they  are  too  late  to  be  trust- 
worthy is  overthrown.  But,  with  this  problem  out  of  the  way, 
others  took  its  place.  The  most  important  were  the  Synoptic 
Problem  and  the  Johannine  Problem.  Neither  of  these  was  new; 
but  they  now  began  to  push  to  the  front,  where  they  remain  till 
the  present  day.  Any  critical  Life  of  Christ  has  to  take  them  up, 
and  to  determine,  not  merely  whether  our  four  gospels  are  of 
early  date,  but  what  are  the  sources,  if  any,  that  lie  behind  them 
and  give  the  story  of  Jesus  as  it  was  originally  told. 

Weiss,  professor  of  theology  at  Berlin,  published  in  1882  a  Life 
of  Christ  (translated  in  three  volumes  in  1883-84)  in  which  these 
problems  and  their  bearing  on  the  history  of  Jesus  are  clearly 
recognized.  He  regards  John  as  more  trustworthy  than  the 
synoptics,  or  at  least  as  correcting  them  in  certain  instances.  He 
also  adopts  one  form  of  the  "double  source"  or  "two-document" 
theory  of  the  origin  of  the  synoptics.  This  theory  in  one  form 
or  another  is  largely  accepted  to-day,  and  Weiss  should  be  studied 
as  an  introduction  to  it.  His  book  was  a  reply  to  Keim,  and  is 
able  and  suggestive.  As  to  miracles,  he  is  Right  Centre,  holding 
that  Christ  wrought  true  miracles  and  rose  from  the  dead,  but 
he  is  inclined  to  rationalistic  explanations  when  possible.  For 
example,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  may  have  been  nothing 
more  than  "a  miracle  of  providence"  by  which,  in  some  purely 
natural  though  unexplained  way,  the  food  was  divinely  supplied 
at  the  precise  hour  of  need.  The  book  is  one  for  careful  study 
rather  than  for  popular  reading;  but  it  well  repays  the  time 
spent  upon  it.  For  Weiss  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  critics  and 
exegetes,  and  his  spiritual  insight  is  profound.  Dr.  Sanday's 
advice  that  a  student  of  the  life  of  Jesus  should  take  Weiss  as 
his  principal  commentary  would  be  endorsed  even  by  those  who 
are  unable  to  accept  all  its  conclusions. 


APPENDIX  215 


VIII 


The  works  we  have  thus  far  considered,  much  as  they  differ, 
all  agree  that  our  opinion  of  Christ  must  depend  upon  the  his- 
torical facts  of  his  life  and  upon  our  philosophical  attitude  tow- 
ard the  supernatural.  But  in  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  a  new 
school  of  theology  has  developed — called  Ritschlianism,  from  its 
founder,  Albrecht  Ritschl — which  seeks  to  make  religion  entirely 
independent  of  science  and  metaphysics  by  confining  one  to  the 
realm  of  faith  and  the  other  to  the  realm  of  knowledge.  For 
example,  concerning  any  fact  we  may  ask,  what  evidence  is  there 
for  it  ?  and  what  explanation  can  be  given  for  it  ? — these  are  ques- 
tions of  science  and  philosophy;  or  we  may  ask,  what  is  its  moral 
value  ?  and  what  does  it  signify  to  us  as  spiritual  beings  ? — these 
are  questions  of  religion.  The  answers  in  the  one  instance  should 
not,  according  to  Ritschlianism,  at  all  affect  the  answers  in  the 
other.  Science  may  refuse  to  accept  an  event  as  a  miracle  be- 
cause natural  causes  for  it  can  be  discovered;  nevertheless  re- 
ligion may  treat  it  as  miraculous  because  it  has  the  practical 
value  of  a  miracle.  Philosophy  may  be  unable  to  accept  the 
divinity  of  Christ  because  it  involves  an  incredible  union  of  God 
and  man;  but  religion,  ignoring  such  perplexity  of  metaphysical 
thought,  may  still  recognize  his  divinity  because  he  has  for  men 
the  practical  value  of  God  incarnate. 

Such  an  attempt  to  combine  doubt  and  faith,  scepticism  and 
belief,  is,  to  say  the  least,  somewhat  bewildering  to  the  ordinary 
man;  and  yet  it  has  greatly  attracted  some  of  the  keen  thinkers 
of  the  present  day.  We  see  its  influence  in  Harnack,  whose 
"What  is  Christianity?"  has  been  widely  read;  and  in  Wendt, 
whose  book  on  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  is  a  remarkably  able  one. 
And  we  have  a  Life  of  Christ  written  from  the  Ritschlian  stand- 
point. 

Stapfer,  professor  of  theology  in  Paris,  gives  us  this  in  "  Jesus 
Christ,  His  Person,  His  Authority,  His  Work,"  published  in 
1895-6  and  translated  soon  after.  In  his  treatment  of  the  sources 
he  accepts  the  "two-document"  theory  concerning  the  synoptics, 
and  regards  John  as  the  recollections  of  the  apostle,  written 
down  by  some  disciple,  perhaps  under  his  personal  supervision. 
The  work  is  divided  into  three  parts. 


216  APPENDIX 

Part  I  treats  of  Jesus  Christ  before  his  ministry.  Jesus  was  a 
man  of  his  time,  and  received  the  ordinary  training  of  a  Jewish 
youth,  which  is  minutely  described.  In  his  thought  he  accepted 
the  best  that  there  was  in  the  teachings  of  both  the  Pharisees  and 
the  Essenes.  His  originaHty  consisted  in  "a  very  clear  and  full 
consciousness  of  a  union  with  God,  which  nothing  in  the  past 
had  ever  troubled,  and  which  nothing  troubled  in  the  present." 
Like  all  Jews,  he  was  expecting  the  Messiah,  and  the  question, 
what  if  I  were  the  Messiah  ?  often  presented  itself  to  him.  The 
influence  of  John  the  Baptist  over  him  was  strong,  and  led  him 
to  baptism,  where  he  received  the  Messianic  consciousness.  He 
began  his  public  work  in  accordance  with  popular  Messianic  con- 
ceptions, in  which  John  shared;  but  after  a  time,  through  an  inner 
experience  indicated  by  the  story  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilder- 
ness, he  rose  above  this  ideal  to  a  higher  one. 

Part  II  treats  of  Jesus  Christ  during  his  ministry.  The  sub- 
ject is  discussed  topically,  and  no  clear  idea  is  given  of  the  par- 
ticular events  or  of  the  course  and  development  of  the  ministry. 
One  chapter  is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  miracles.  They 
were  no  part  of  the  Messianic  work,  but  belonged  simply  to 
Christ's  vocation  as  a  rabbi,  since  one  work  of  a  rabbi  was  to 
cure  diseases  and  cast  out  demons.  Whether  Stapfer  regards 
them  as  supernatural  or  not,  it  is  hard  to  say;  for  on  the  one 
hand  he  lays  down  the  axiom,  "  the  laws  of  nature  are  inviolable," 
hence  it  follows  that  the  so-called  miracle,  if  it  really  took  place, 
can  only  be  something  which  lies  outside  of  the  present  known 
forces  of  nature;  yet  on  the  other  hand  he  says,  "By  prayer  one 
acts  upon  God,  and  through  Him  upon  nature  itself;  this  is  why 
Jesus  certainly  performed  true  miracles,  and  did  it  often;  for 
God  certainly  gave  him  the  answer  to  his  prayers." 

Part  III,  which  is  the  largest  of  the  three,  treats  of  the  Death 
and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  Up  to  the  very  hour  of  his 
arrest,  though  he  saw  the  dangers  thickening  about  him,  Jesus 
hoped  to  escape  death ;  and  the  betrayal  by  Judas  was  a  surprise 
to  him.  Yet  he  died  with  the  assurance  that  his  cause  would 
triumph  even  by  means  of  his  death.  As  to  the  resurrection, 
there  were  spiritual  appearances  to  the  disciples,  but  no  resur- 
rection of  the  body,  though  how  the  tomb  became  empty  we  can- 
not say.     Really  what  took  place  on  the  third  day  we  never  can 


APPENDIX  217 

know,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  little  importance;  concerning  the 
resurrection  "the  true  believer  has  no  need  of  historic  proofs;  he 
has  intuitions  of  heart  and  conscience,  and  those  eternal  reasons 
which  lie  in  the  depths  of  his  soul,  and  which  the  abstract  rea- 
son knows  not  of."    This  is  a  typical  Ritschlian  conclusion. 

IX 

Two  other  lives  of  Jesus,  both  written  in  German  but  accessible 
in  translation,  may  be  briefly  described. 

Holtzmann,  professor  at  Giessen,  published  a  Life  of  Jesus  in 
1901.  He  holds  the  "two-document"  theory  concerning  the 
synoptics,  and  finds  in  John  little  of  historical  value.  The  Gos- 
pel of  the  Hebrews  he  considers  as  "  on  the  whole  similar  to  our 
synoptic  gospels,  but  at  the  same  time  completely  independent 
of  them,  while  yet  possessed  of  an  equal  value";  and  he  makes  all 
possible  use  of  it.  He  thinks  the  duration  of  the  ministry  "  can- 
not be  reliably  fixed,"  but  inclines  to  one  year  and  some  months. 
Jesus  was  born  at  Nazareth,  and  the  stories  that  cluster  around 
Bethlehem  are  unhistorical.  He  grew  up  conscious  of  no  sinful 
action,  yet  consented  to  be  baptized  by  John  because  he  might 
have  sinned  unconsciously.  (As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  later  life  he 
does  display  occasional  bursts  of  ill  temper;  e.g.,  in  his  treatment 
of  the  Syrophcenician  woman  and  his  cursing  of  the  fig  tree.) 
In  a  spiritual  vision  at  the  baptism  he  gains  the  Messianic  con- 
sciousness and  at  the  same  time  the  Holy  Spirit  endows  him 
with  Messianic  attributes.  At  a  comparatively  early  stage  of 
his  ministry  he  foresees  by  purely  human  wisdom  that  death  is 
the  inevitable  end;  but  he  nobly  labors  on  in  sublime  confidence 
that  his  labors  will  not  be  in  vain.  As  to  miracles,  Holtzmann  is 
Left  Centre.  The  healings  were  the  effect  of  mind  upon  mind; 
the  nature  miracles  were  in  some  instances  "remarkable  coinci- 
dences," in  others  exaggerations  or  poetical  accounts  of  natural 
events.  There  was  no  resurrection.  The  tomb  was  empty  be- 
cause Joseph  of  Arimatheea  had  quietly  removed  the  body,  not 
wishing  "to  permit  a  crucified  man  to  lie  permanently  beside 
the  dead  of  his  own  family."  The  disciples  were  expecting  Jesus 
to  rise  on  the  third  day,  i.  e.,  in  a  very  short  time;  hence  in  Galilee 
Peter  first  and  then  the  others  had  visions  of  the  risen  Lord. 


218  APPENDIX 

"The  formula  which  sums  up  the  historical  significance  of  Jesus 
Christ's  appearance  is  this:  the  highest  moral  end  in  life  com- 
bined with  the  joyful  assurance  of  eternal  salvation."  Evidently 
the  book  is  not  at  all  an  advance  upon  Renan,  and  it  lacks  the 
literary  charms  of  that  popular  writer. 

Bossuet,  professor  of  theology  at  Gottingen,  in  his  "Jesus" 
(1904,  translated  in  1906),  reminds  us  in  style  and  thought  still 
more  strongly  of  Renan,  though  his  attitude  is  more  serious  and 
reverent.  He  does  not  attempt  to  construct  a  narrative  life  of 
Jesus,  for  which  he  holds  that  the  gospels  do  not  provide  the 
necessary  means;  but  he  gives  us  a  study  of  his  work,  teachings, 
and  person.  The  son  of  Joseph  as  well  as  of  Mary,  performing 
no  miracles,  but  only  works  of  healing,  "entirely  within  the 
bounds  of  the  psychologically  conceivable,"  looking  forward  to 
his  death  as  no  more  sacrificial  than  that  of  any  martyr  for  the 
truth,  he  "  never  overstepped  the  limits  of  the  purely  human."  He 
did  appropriate  to  himself  the  Messianic  expectation,  because  he 
was  confident  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  and  "ac- 
cording to  the  popular  ideal  this  was  inconceivable  without  the 
Messiah."  Yet  he  did  this  reluctantly.  "The  Messianic  idea 
was  the  only  possible  form  in  which  Jesus  could  clothe  his  inner 
consciousness,  and  yet  an  inadequate  form;  it  was  a  necessity, 
but  also  a  heavy  burden  which  he  bore  in  silence  almost  to  the 
end  of  his  life;  it  was  a  conviction  which  he  could  never  enjoy 
with  a  whole  heart."  The  uniqueness  of  Jesus  and  the  secret 
of  his  life  and  work  lay  in  the  fact  that  he  "  felt  that  he  stood 
in  such  closeness  of  communion  with  God  the  Father  as  be- 
longed to  none  before  or  after  him.  He  was  conscious  of  speak- 
ing the  last  and  decisive  word.  He  felt  that  what  he  did  was 
final,  and  that  none  would  come  after  him."  But  if  this  be  so, 
we  are  left  in  perplexity  as  to  how  it  can  be  true  that  Jesus  "never 
overstepped  the  limits  of  the  purely  human." 

X 

Translation  is  a  winnowing  process,  so  that  Lives  of  Christ 
which  have  been  translated  may  be  reckoned  among  the  best 
of  the  foreign  works.  When  we  turn  to  works  by  English  writers 
we  must  ourselves  make  the  selection  from  a  large  number,  some 


APPENDIX  219 

of  which  are  of  slight  value,  though  no  book  upon  such  an  impor- 
tant subject  can  be  wholly  valueless.  Many  are  the  work  of  busy 
pastors — the  outgrowth,  perhaps,  of  a  series  of  sermons — and, 
while  not  lacking  in  scholarship,  their  aim  is  chiefly  devotional. 
Such,  for  example,  are  Lives  by  Beecher,  Crosby,  Deems,  Eddy, 
Hanna.  They  are  not  intended  for  the  student,  and  may  be 
omitted  from  our  list. 

Almost  without  exception  the  English  lives  are  written  from 
an  orthodox  stand-point,  using  all  four  of  the  gospels  as  reliable 
sources,  recognizing  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  taking  the  Right 
as  their  position  on  miracles.  Having  so  much  in  common,  they 
need  no  detailed  description.  We  mention  only  the  more  im- 
portant in  chronological  order. 

Ellicott,  afterward  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  gave  as  the 
Hulsean  Lectures  at  Cambridge  in  1859  a  course  on  the  life  of 
Christ.  This  was  published  with  voluminous  notes.  The  lect- 
ures are  rhetorical  and  difiFuse,  but  the  notes  are  compact,  keen, 
and  scholarly,  and,  though  written  half  a  century  ago,  are  still 
valuable. 

Andrews  (1862,  new  edition  thoroughly  revised,  1891)  confines 
himself  to  chronological,  topographical,  and  historical  details, 
discussing  their  problems  with  great  minuteness.  In  this  field 
his  work  has  no  equal,  and  is  indispensable  for  the  student.  His 
divisions  of  the  ministry,  with  a  statement  of  the  leading  purpose 
and  general  character  of  each  division,  are  suggestive  and  helpful. 
These  and  the  other  more  important  parts  of  the  book  are  dis- 
tinguished by  the  use  of  a  larger  type. 

Ahhott  (1869)  aims  "to  give  the  life  and  teachings  of  Christ  that 
significance  which  is  afforded  by  a  knowledge  of  his  times  and 
circumstances — to  present  the  life  of  Christ  in  its  appropriate 
setting."  At  the  time  it  was  written  this  was  a  valuable  work; 
but  the  later  environmental  Lives  have  largely  superseded  it,  and 
the  book  is  out  of  print. 

Farrar  (1874)  designed  his  book  for  popular  reading,  and  it 
certainly  has  attained  its  object,  having  been  more  widely  circu- 
lated than  any  other  English  Life  of  Christ.  It  is  diffuse  in  style 
and  marred  by  attempts  at  fine  writing.  In  this  book  and  "The 
Life  of  St.  Paul"  and  "The  Early  Days  of  Christianity"  he 
covers  the  whole  of  New  Testament  times.    In  popularity  the 


220  APPENDIX 

three  books  stand  in  the  order  above  given,  which  is  the  order  of 
their  publication,  but  in  scholarly  worth  they  stand  in  exactly  the 
reverse  order. 

Geikie  (1877)  gives  another  popular  Life  written  along  the  same 
lines  as  that  by  Farrar.  He  has  brought  together  in  a  huge  and 
indiscriminate  mass  all  the  information  that  he  could  gather  con- 
cerning the  environment;  and  we  are  overwhelmed  by  it,  and 
sometimes  almost  lose  sight  of  the  central  figure.  He  also  presents 
in  diffuse  paraphrase  all  of  Christ's  teachings.  The  book  would 
be  greatly  improved  by  selection  and  condensation. 

Stalker  (1879)  wrote  his  Life  as  one  of  a  series  of  hand-books 
for  Bible  classes.  His  endeavor  was  "to  throw  into  prominence 
the  great  masses  of  our  Lord's  life,  and  point  out  clearly  its  hinge 
events,  details  being  as  much  as  possible  curtailed."  He  has 
succeeded  admirably,  and  his  little  book  gives  a  clear  and  interest- 
ing outline  which  every  student  will  find  of  great  value  at  the  out- 
set of  his  studies.     It  is  the  book  for  a  beginner. 

Edersheim  (1883)  is  probably  the  best  of  the  popular  writers. 
He  was  reared  as  a  Jew,  and  is  therefore  familiar  with  the  details 
of  Jewish  life  and  the  lore  of  the  Talmud,  both  of  which  he  uses 
to  illustrate  his  subject.  Though  somewhat  mystical,  he  is  very 
helpful  in  his  reverent  interpretation  of  Christ's  words  and  deeds. 
His  book  is  one  which  all  general  readers  should  own. 

Fairhairn  (1889),  in  his  "Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,"  takes 
only  the  leading  topics,  and  has  in  mind  the  needs  of  the  scholar. 
Though  prepared  originally  as  a  series  of  pulpit  discourses,  it 
ranks  among  the  most  thoughtful  and  suggestive  of  English  works 
and  will  well  repay  careful  study.     It  should  be  better  known. 

GUhert  (1896,  new  edition  largely  rewritten,  1900)  fitly  describes 
his  book  by  calling  it  "The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus."  It  is  a  well- 
arranged  text-book,  taking  up  in  detail  the  incidents  in  Christ's 
life  (the  teachings  are  reserved  for  his  later  work,  "The  Revelation 
of  Jesus"),  and  discussing  them  with  frank  recognition  of  scepti- 
cal objections  and  with  able  defence  of  orthodox  conclusions.  It 
needs  to  be  supplemented  by  some  work  which  gives  the  environ- 
ment and  brings  out  more  clearly  the  divisions  and  progress  of 
Christ's  ministry. 

Rhees  (1900)  gives  us  another  text-book  which  in  method  is  the 
exact  opposite  of  Gilbert.    Without  discussing  separate  incidents 


APPENDIX  221 

minutely,  he  offers  a  broad  view  of  the  historical  setting  and 
progress  of  Christ's  life,  and  the  problems  it  presents.  Gilbert 
and  Rhees  taken  together  make  an  excellent  combination  for  the 
student's  purpose. 

Dawson  (1901)  states  that  his  object  is  "  to  depict  the  human  life 
of  Jesus  as  it  appeared  to  his  contemporaries,  with  a  purposed 
negligence,  as  far  as  it  is  possible,  of  the  vexed  problems  of  theology 
and  metaphysics."  He  rearranges  events  with  great  freedom  and, 
though  recognizing  the  miraculous  in  Christ's  life,  minimizes  it  as 
much  as  possible.  The  book  is  graphically  written,  but  its  atti- 
tude will  hardly  please  either  the  devout  or  the  sceptical. 

Sanday  (1905)  is  the  writer  of  the  article  on  Jesus  Christ  in 
"Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,"  and  this  article  has  been  reprinted 
as  a  separate  volume  with  the  title  "Outlines  of  the  Life  of 
Christ."  It  is  a  very  able  production,  replete  with  the  latest 
scholarship,  and  it  makes  us  look  forward  eagerly  to  the  larger 
work  on  the  same  subject  in  preparation  by  the  author.  The 
average  reader  will  probably  find  the  book  too  condensed  and  pre- 
supposing too  much  familiarity  with  its  subject;  but  the  student 
who  is  prepared  to  profit  by  it  will  be  charmed  with  its  fresh, 
stimulating  and  broad  treatment  of  the  problems  it  discusses. 

Smith  (1905),  under  the  title  "The  Days  of  His  Flesh,"  treats 
the  life  of  Jesus  along  the  lines  of  Edersheim  and  Farrar,  but  with 
much  freshness  and  occasional  fancifulness.  He  prefaces  his  work 
with  a  discussion  of  the  sources,  in  which  he  makes  the  synoptics 
depend  upon  the  oral  tradition  rather  than  upon  any  earlier 
documents.    The  book  is  an  excellent  one  for  the  general  reader. 

Schmidt  (1905),  in  "The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,"  discusses  many 
topics  that  bear  upon  the  origin  of  the  belief,  which  he  rejects,  that 
Jesus  was  divine,  but  devotes  only  one  chapter  to  an  account  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  as  it  may  be  constructed  after  discarding  all  the 
supernatural.  The  book  is  intended  for  students  rather  than  for 
popular  use,  and  is  the  ablest  work  from  a  rationalistic  stand- 
point that  has  been  put  forth  by  an  English  or  American  author. 

Garvie  (1907)  says  of  his  "Studies  in  the  Inner  Life  of  Jesus"  : 
"The  title  indicates  the  purpose  and  the  method  of  the  book.  It  is 
the  mind,  heart,  and  will  of  Jesus  as  revealed  in  his  words  and 
work  that  the  writer  seeks  to  understand."  It  is  a  very  careful 
and  illuminating  treatment  of  the  questions  that  arise  in  connec- 


222  APPENDIX 

tion  with  the  chief  points  in  Christ's  ministry.  The  student  who 
has  made  himself  familiar  with  the  details  of  Jesus'  life,  and  wishes 
to  go  further  and  study  their  full  significance  will  find  this  book 
most  helpful  and  suggestive.  It  is  the  work  of  a  scholar  who 
recognizes  present-day  problems  and  sets  himself  sympathetically 
to  aid  those  who  are  seeking  their  solution.  The  critical  introduc- 
tion, discussing  the  value  of  the  sources,  is  also  to  be  commended. 

XI 

"To  write  the  Life  of  Christ  ideally  is  impossible.  And  even  to 
write  such  a  Life  as  should  justify  itself  either  for  popular  use  or  for 
study  is  a  task  of  extreme  difficulty."  So  says  Sanday  at  the  close 
of  his  Outlines,  and  he  adds:  "Great  as  are  the  merits  of  these 
modern  works,  there  is  none  (at  least  none  known  to  the  writer) 
which  possesses  such  a  balance  and  combination  of  qualities  as 
to  rise  quite  to  the  level  of  a  classic."  Our  review  of  the  literature 
shows  that  his  opinion  is  well-founded.  The  demands  which  a 
Life  of  Christ  makes  upon  its  author  are  greater  than  we  can  hope 
to  have  met  by  any  one  man.  He  must  be  a  profound  scholar, 
a  keen  critic,  an  unbiased  judge,  a  master  of  literary  style,  and, 
above  all,  an  earnest,  reverent  disciple  of  the  Master:  the  Christ 
of  history  is  best  known  through  the  Christ  of  personal  experience. 

"Taken  as  a  whole,"  says  Fairbairn,  "  though  it  is  a  whole  that 
admits  remarkable  rather  than  weighty  exceptions — we  may  say 
that  the  more  recent  Lives  are  distinguished  by  a  growing  sense 
of  being  on  firm  historical  ground,  and  of  using  sources  that  the 
more  they  are  critically  handled  can  be  the  more  intelligently 
trusted."  This  is  a  great  gain,  and  encourages  us  to  look  forward 
with  hopefulness  to  works  yet  to  be  produced.  There  never  was 
a  time  when  the  life  of  Christ  was  more  eagerly  and  enthusiastically 
studied,  and  when  a  work  upon  that  subject  reached  as  large  a 
body  of  careful  readers.  And  though  the  ideal  Life  may  never 
be  written,  we  can  confidently  expect  that  the  present  century  will 
give  us  something  better  than  the  past  has  ever  produced.  To 
forecast  its  form  is  impossible,  but  everything  indicates  that  its 
conclusions  concerning  the  Founder  of  our  religion  will  be  in 
harmony  with  the  story  of  the  evangelists  and  the  faith  of  the 
Christian  church. 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Ezra,  place  in  discovery  of 

the  Diatessaron,  90. 
Abbott,  Lyman,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 
Acts  of  Pilate,  23. 
Agrapha,  17  f. 
Alexandrian  text,  63. 
Alexandrinus,  Codex,  53. 
Allen,    W.    C,    on    authorship    of 

Matthew,  148. 
Andrew,  Gospel  of,  33. 
Andrews,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 
Antiochian  text,  62. 
Apocalypses,    influence    on    Jewish 

thought,  195/.;   relation  to  career 

of  Jesus,  196  if. 
Apocryphal  gospels,  21  ff.;  apologetic 

value,  24. 
Apologists,  42;    their  canon  of  gos- 
pels, 43,  86. 
Apostles,  attitude  toward  miracles, 

97;    not  idealized  in  gospels,  99; 

could  gain  nothing  by  fraud,  172; 

competent  witnesses,  175  ff. 
Apostolic  Fathers,  15;  their  account 

of  Jesus,  16;    use  of  our  gospels, 

86. 
Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  23. 
Ariston,   possible    author  of    Mark 

16:9-20,  81. 
Augustine,     solution     of     synoptic 

problem,  107. 

Barnabas,  Gospel  of,  33. 

Bartholomew,  Gospel  of,  33. 

Baur,    F.    C,    leader   of   Tubingen 

School,  206;  test  of  the  date  of  a 

gospel,  207;    little  part  assigned 

to  Jesus,  209. 
Beecher,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 
Bezae,  Codex,  54;  peculiarities,  63  /. 
Bohairic  version,  76. 
Bossuet,  on  chronology  of  gospels, 

201;    Life  of  Christ,  218. 
Browning,  "Death  in  the  Desert," 

139. 


Bruce,  A.  B.,  on  authorship  of  John, 
122;  on  miracles  and  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  gospels,  188. 

Burton,  E.  D,,  purpose  of  Matthew, 
151/7. 

Canon,   meaning  of  the  term,   38; 

formation  of,  37  ff. 
Character  of  Jesus,  the  same  in  all 

four  gospels,    178;     unique,    179; 

impossible  to  invent,  180  ff. 
Christianity,  not  based  on  a  book, 

35/. 
Clement   of   Alexandria,   John    the 

spiritual  gospel,  131;   Peter  living 

when  Mark  wrote,  157. 
Clement  of  Rome,  possible  quotation 

from  Matthew,  87. 
Codices,  origin,  49;    description  of 

the  most  famous,  53  /. 
Councils  of  the  church,  action  on  the 

canon,  43  /. 
Crosby,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 
Curetonian  Syriac  version,  74. 
Cursives,  50  /. 

Dawson,  Life  of  Christ,  221. 
Deems,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 
Deissmann,     on     the     canon,     44; 

ostraca,  47. 
"Descent  into  Hades,"  23. 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  88  ff. 

"Ecce  Deus,"  by  Joseph  Parker, 
212. 

"Ecce  Homo,"  by  J.  R.  Seeley, 
211. 

Eddy,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 

Edersheim,  description  of  Talmud, 
9;    Life  of  Chnst,  220. 

Egyptian  versions,  76. 

Egyptians,  Gospel  of,  33. 

Ellicott,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 

Ephraem,  commentary'  on  the  Dia- 
tessaron, 88  /. 

Ephraemi,  Codex,  53. 

Erasmus,  text  of  N.  T.,  57. 


223 


224 


INDEX 


Errors,   in  manuscripts,   55   ff,;   in 

apostolic  testimony,  177. 
Eusebius,    about   woman    taken    in 

adultery,  32,  82;    quotes  Papias, 

40,  111;   possible  relation  to  early 

codices,  55. 
Ewald,  Life  of  Christ  in  his  History 

of  Israel.  208. 

Fairbaim,  on  Paulus,  191;  opinion  of 
"Ecce  Homo,"  212;  Life  of  Christ, 
220;  judgment  of  recent  Lives,  22. 

Farrar,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 

Fathers,  quotations  in  the,  76  /. 

Fisher,  G.  P.,  88. 

Fleetwood,  John,  Life  of  Christ,  203. 

Fouard,  Life  of  Christ,  213. 

Freer,  manuscript  of  gospels,  65  n. 

Garvie,  A.  E.,  on  environment  as 
explaining  career  of  Jesus,  201  /.; 
"Inner  Life  of  Jesus,"  221. 

Geikie,  Life  of  Christ,  220. 

Gilbert,  Life  of  Christ,  220. 

Gloag,  on  style  of  John,  169  /. 

Gnostics,  used  Gospel  of  Egyptians, 
33;    influence  on  canon,  41  /. 

Gore,  on  the  apostles  as  witnesses, 
176  /.;  on  miracles  of  Jesus,  193. 

Gospels,  probable  origin,  25  ff.;  early 
opinion  of  their  sacredness,  29,  45, 
57;  not  the  basis  of  belief  in 
Christ,  35/.;  canon,  37^.;  oral  pre- 
ferred, 26,  39;  originally  copied 
with  little  care,  45;  text,  55  if.; 
date,  84  ff.;  accuracy  in  historical 
facts,  95;  freedom  from  anachron- 
isms, 96  /.;  original  titles,  102  /.; 
synoptic  problem,  103  ff.;  Johan- 
nine  problems,  118  ff.;  character- 
istics, 145  ff.;  symbolized,  145; 
trustworthiness,  171  ff.;  use  for  a 
Life  of  Christ,  185  ff.;  attitude 
of  critics  toward  them,  186  /.; 
biographies  or  memorabilia,  199  /. 

Greek  of  New  Testament,  71  /. 

Gregory,  C.  R.,  opinion  of  Syrian 
text,  62;  groups  of  text,  66;  ac- 
curacy of  text,  78. 

Grenfell  and  Hunt,  new  sayings  of 
Jesus,  17  ^. 

Hanna,  Life  of  Christ,  219. 

Heathen  writers,  little  reason  to 
mention  Jesus,  1  /.;  Tacitus,  3; 
Suetonius,  3;  Pliny  the  Younger, 
4;  value  of  their  testimony,  5. 


Hebrews,  Gospel  of,  30  ff. 
Hegelianism,     used     by    Tubingen 

School   in   early   church   history, 

207. 
Holtzmann,    value    of    Gospel    of 

Hebrews,  31;   criticized  by  Illing- 

worth,  143;  Life  of  Jesus,  217. 

Illingworth,  criticism  of  Holtzmann, 
143/. 

Irenseus,  on  authorship  of  the  gos- 
pels, 91  ff.,  120;  on  Polycarp,  92  /.; 
Peter  and  Paul  dead  when  Mark 
wrote,  157. 

Jackson,  S.  M.,  on  Keim's  Life  of 
Jesus,  213. 

John  the  apostle,  teacher  of  Poly- 
carp, 93;  author  of  gospel,  119  ff.; 
motives  for  writing,  132  /.;  re- 
ceptivity, 137  /. 

John  the  Baptist,  account  by  Jo- 
sephus,  6. 

John  the  presbyter,  40,  120. 

John,  Gospel  of,  date,  100;  impres- 
sions of  its  value,  118;  author- 
ship, 119  /.;  trustworthiness,  122, 
129;  Johannine  problem,  123  ff.; 
purpose,  132  /.,  137;  an  interpre- 
tation, 139,  142;  arrangement, 
166  /.;  analysis,  168;  style,  169  /. 

John  5  :  3-4,  82. 

John  7  :  8,  60  /. 

John  7:  53—8:  11,32,81/. 

John  21 :  24,  84,  119. 

Joseph  the  Carpenter,  History  of,  23. 

Josephus,  account  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, 6;    mention  of  Jesus,  6  ff. 

Jiilicher,  authorship  of  fourth  gos- 
pel, 121;  Johannine  problem,  li3; 
on  importance  of  Matthew,   154. 

Justin  Martyr,  account  of  Jesus,  16; 
"Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  87  /., 
91. 

Keim,  on  Paul's  account  of  Jesus, 
15;  on  apocryphal  gospels,  34; 
opinion  of  miracle  at  Jericho,  192; 
Life  of  Christ,  212. 

Lake,  value  of  patristic  quotations, 

77. 
Lange,  Life  of  Christ,  206. 
Lecky,  on  character  of  Jesus,  179  /. 
Lectionaries,  52. 
Lewis  Syriac  version,  75. 


INDEX 


225 


Lives  of  Christ,  by  Abbott,  219; 
Andrews,  219;  Beecher,  219;  Bos- 
suet,  218;  Crosby,  219;  Dawson, 
221;  Deems,  219;  Eddy,  219; 
Edersheim,  229;  EUicott.  219; 
Ewald,  208;  Fairbairn,  220;  Far- 
rar,  219;  Fleetwood,  203;  Fou- 
ard,  213;  Garvie,  221;  Geikie, 
220;  Gilbert,  220;  Hanna,  219; 
Holtzmann,  217;  Keim,  212; 
Lange,  206;  Neander,  206;  Par- 
ker, 212;  Pressensd,  210;  Renan, 
209;  Sanday,  221;  Schmidt,  221; 
Seeley,  211;  Smith,  221;  Stalker, 
220;  Stapfer,  215;  Rhees,  220; 
Strauss,  204;  Taylor,  203;  Weiss, 
214;  lacking  in  Mediaeval  Age, 
203;  a  task  of  extreme  difficulty, 
222. 

Logia,  112  f.;  use  in  Matthew,  114, 
152;   use  in  Luke,  115,  163. 

Luke  the  evangelist,  preface  to  his 
gospel,  25,  29;  author  of  gospel, 
160/.;  sourcesof  information,  161; 
purpose,  162  /.;  literary  and  his- 
torical skill,  163. 

Luke,  Gospel  of,  origin,  115;  read- 
ers, 162;    characteristics,  164  /. 

Luke  22  :  43-44,  82. 

Luke  23  :  34a,  83. 

Manuscripts,  material,  46  if.;  age, 
how  determined,  50/.;  number  and 
designation,  52;  errors,  55  ff. 

Mark  the  evangelist,  statement  by 
Papias,     111;      personal    history, 

154  /.;    relation  to  Peter,  155. 
Mark,  Gospel  of,  based  on  Peter,  113, 

155  /.;  purpose,  156  /.;  character- 
istics, 158  ff.;  importance,  160. 

Mark  16  :  9-20,  48,  79  /. 

Matthew  the  apostle,  148;  his 
Logia,  112;  probably  not  author 
of  First  Gospel,  148  /. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of;  origin,  114  /.; 
authorship,  148/.;  purpose,  149  ff.; 
importance,  154. 

Messianic  proclamations  of  Jesus,  in 
Synoptics  and  in  John,  127,  139  ff.; 
influence  of  apocalyptical  ideas, 
196//. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  opinion  of  John, 
118;  gospel  story  not  an  inven- 
tion, 183. 

Miracles,  relation  to  credibility  of 
gospels,  85,  188  ff.;  attitude  of 
Jesus,  98;  deserve  fair  treatment, 
174;  harmonize  with  character  of 
Jesus,  181;  treatment  of  them  by 
critics,  188  /.;   career  and  teach- 


ings of  Jesus  vitally  connected 
with  them,  191  ff.;  use  as  proof  of 
Christ's  divinity,  194;  theory  of 
Strauss,  205;  attitude  of  llitsch- 
lianism,  215. 

Mistakes  of  copyists,  56  /. 

Mitchell,  on  value  of  versions,  71. 

Montanists,  influence  on  canon,  41  /. 

Myths,  develop  rapidly,  173;  theory 
of  Strauss,  205. 

Nativity  of  Mary,  Gospel  of,  23. 

Neander,  Life  of  Christ,  206. 

Nero,  persecution  of  Christians,  3, 
28. 

Neutral  text,  65. 

New  Testament  books  other  than 
Gospels,  give  few  additional  facta 
about  Jesus,  11  /.;  confirm  the  gos- 
pel story,  12  jf.,  178. 

Nicodemus,  Gospel  of,  23. 

Old  Latin  versions,  73  /. 

Oral  gospel,  preferred  to  written, 
26,  39;   origin,  109  /. 

Origen,  testimony  about  Josephus, 
8;   on  gospel  of  John,  170. 

Ostraca,  46;  value  for  text  of  gos- 
pels, 47. 

Oxyrhynchus  papyri,  17  /.,  33. 

Papias,  preference  for  oral  teaching, 
26,  39/.;  story  of  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  82;  on  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew, 111  /. 

Papyrus,  manufacture,  47  /.;  manu- 
scripts, 49. 

Parchment,  49. 

Parker,  Joseph,  "Ecce  Deus,"  212. 

Passing  of  Mary,  23. 

Passover,  relation  to  Last  Supper, 
125,  135. 

Patristic  quotations,  76  /. 

Paul,  knowledge  of  Jesus,  13;  con- 
firms the  gospel  story,  14  /.,  178. 

Paulus,  treatment  of  miracles,  190  /. 

Peabody,  F.  G.,  opinion  of  "Ecce 
Homo,"  212. 

Peshitta,  74. 

Peter,  Gospel  of,  33. 

Philo,  silence  about  Jesus  natural, 
5. 

Pliny  the  Younger,  letter  to  Trajan, 
4. 


226 


INDEX 


Plummer,  on  literary  skill  of  Luke, 

163. 
Polycarp,  link  between  Irenaeus  and 

John,  92  /. 
Pressensd,  Life  of  Christ,  210. 
Protevangelium  of  James,  23. 
Pseudo-Matthew,  Gospel  of,  23.  . 

Q,  the  source  document,  116. 
Quotations,  in  the  Fathers,  76  /. 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  opinion  of  Luke, 
163. 

Renan,  opinion  of  miracle  at  Beth- 
any, 192;  Vie  de  J^sus,  209;  em- 
phasis of  environment,  212. 

Rhees,  Life  of  Christ,  220. 

Ritschlianism,  treatment  of  the  Life 
of  Christ.  215. 

Robertson,  J.,  no  indirect  discourse 
in  Hebrew,  136. 

Robinson,  J.  A.,  conversational  tone 
of  Mark,  158. 

Sanday,  on  Browning's  "Death  in 
the  Desert,"  139;  opinion  of 
Weiss,  214;  Life  of  Christ,  221; 
estimate  of  modem  Lives,  222. 

Schaff,  Philip,  on  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  15;  opinion  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  118. 

Schmidt,  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  221. 

Schmiedel,  sceptical  treatment  of 
the  gospels,  186. 

Seeley,  J.  R.,  "Ecce  Homo,"  211. 

Sinaitic  Syriac  version,  75. 

Sihaiticus,  Codex,  54. 

Smith,  D.,  Life  of  Christ,  221. 

Smith,  Goldwin,  opinion  of  the  mir- 
acles of  Jesus,  181. 

Smith,  H.  B.,  criticism  of  Renan, 
210. 

Sources  for  a  Life  of  Christ,  heathen 
writers,  1  ff.;  Jewish  writers,  5  ff.; 
Acts  and  N.  T.  epistles,  1 1  ff.;  Apos- 
tolic Fathers,  15  if.;  apocryphal 
gospels,  21  ff.',  N.  T.  Gospels,  35  ff. 

Stalker,  Life  of  Christ,  220. 

Stapfer,  Life  of  Christ,  215. 

Strauss,  Life  of  Christ,  204;  myth- 
ical theory,  205;  little  part  as- 
signed to  Jesus,  209. 


Suetonius,  mention  of  Chrestus,  3  /. 

Symbols  for  the  Gospels,  145. 

Synoptic  gospels,  104  f.;  their  prob- 
lem and  its  proposed  solutions, 
106  ff.;  use  for  a  Life  of  Christ, 
198/. 

Syriac  versions,  74  /. 

Syrian  text,  62. 

Tacitus,  mention  of  Jesus,  3. 

Talmud,  origin,  8;  allusions  to 
Jesus,  9  f. 

Tatian's  Diatessaron,  88  if. 

Taylor,  Jeremy,  Life  of  Christ, 
203. 

Text  of  Gospels,  sources  of  error, 
55  if.;  Syrian  or  Antiochian,  62; 
Alexandrian,  63;  Western,  63  /.; 
Neutral,  65;  correctness,  78;  im- 
portant changes,  79  if. 

Thomas,  Gospel  of,  23;  repulsive  in- 
cidents, 24,  182. 

Tubingen  School,  view  of  early 
church  history,  207;  later  in- 
fluence, 207  /. 

Twelve,  Gospel  of  the,  33. 

Uncials,  50  /. 
Ur-Marcus,  114. 

Van  Dyke,  Jesus  not  an  imaginary 

person,  183. 
Vaticanus,  Codex,  53. 
Versions,  69  /.;    Latin  73;    Syriac, 

74;   Egyptian,  76. 
Vulgate,  73. 

Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  214. 

Wendt,  teachings  of  Jesus  alike  in 
John  and  synoptics,  130,  136; 
Logia,  152. 

Westcott,  B.  F.,  on  authorship  of 
John,  121. 

Westcott  and  Hort,  on  falsification 
of  text,  61;  grouping  of  manu- 
scripts. 62  /.;  opinion  of  correct- 
ness of  text,  78. 

Western  text,  63  f. 

Zahn,  reconstruction  of  the  Diates- 
saron, 90. 


Date  Due 

!- ^                 .  ' 

*A 

■    '■     Q 

/ 

^ 

